The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098-1187 0521453836, 9780521453837

Citation preview

74ASA Pee,

’

FOLDA

The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 10981187 examines the art and architecture produced for the invading Crusaders in Syria-Pale stine durin g the first century of their quest to recapture and control the holy sites of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth. Commissioned by kings and queens, patriarchs, bishops, knights, and merchants who came as pilgrims or settlers to the Holy Land, it is an art of manuscr ipt illumination, icons, fresco painting, mosaics, stone sculpture, metalwork, ivory carving, embroidery, coins, and seals by artists trained in the Latin West and the Crusader, Byzantine, and

Islamic East. Combining the multicultural traditions of these region s, Crusader art defies easy categorization. Indeed, it is a unique phenomenon within the spectr um of medieval art. Based on years of research, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, the initial volume in a two-part survey, is the first comprehensive study of all the arts, which are considered together within their historical context. Charting stylisti c and iconographic evolution, this study identifies the main phases of artistic development from the origins, through its flourishing era during the reigns of Queen Melisende (1131-1161) and King Amaury (1163-1174) to the final achievements before 1187. Defin-

ing a distinctive and important chapter in the history of medieval art, this groundbreaking work is illustrated with 700 halftone illustrations and 41 color plates.

The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land 1098-1187

The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land 1098-1187

Jaroslav Folda Hill Universi ity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

== CAMBRIDGE ©)

UNIVERSITY PRESS

Dorothy E. Miner In Memoriam

dge Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambri 1RP CB2 dge Cambri The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia

© Cambridge University Press 1995 First published 1995

Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for. A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0-521-45383-6 Hardback

Photos are by the author unless otherwise indicated; all photos credited to the University of Wisconsin Press are those used for the article by John Porteous, “Crusader

Coinage with Greek or Latin Inscriptions,” A History of the Crusades, ed. K.M. Setton, vol. 6, The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, ed. H.W. Hazard and N.P. Zacour. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989, pp. 354420.

Contents

page

List of Illustrations

Vii

Color Plates

Maps Figures Plates

Preface List of Abbreviations Color Plates Introduction

CHAPTER1

Reflections on the Historiography of “Crusader Art”

PART I: THE ORIGINS AND EARLY YEARS

CHAPTER2

The First Crusaders and Their Artistic Context: 1095-1099

CHAPTER3

The Beginnings of Crusader Art: 1099-1100

CHAPTER4

— Crusader Art in the Reign ofKing Baldwin I of Jerusalem: 1100-1118

CHAPTER5

34 46

Crusader Art in the Reign ofKing Baldwin II of Jerusalem: 1118-1131

PART II: THE ERA OF QUEEN MELISENDE OF JERUSALEM

CHAPTER6

Crusader Art in the Reign of King Fulk and Queen Melisende: 1131-1143

Crusader Art in the Reign of Queen Melisende and King Baldwin III: 1143-1163 The Church ofthe Holy Sepulcher

CHAPTER7

119

CHAPTERS

Queen Melisende and Crusader Art in the Reign of King Baldwin III: 1143-1163

Kingdom: 1143-1152 A. Jerusalem and the Latin Kingdom: 1152-1163 B. Jerusalem and the Latin

246 287

M TO 1187 ZARETH, AND JERUSALE PART III: BETHLEHEM, NA

CHAPTER9 CHAPTER 10

g Amaury I: 1163-1174 Crusader Art in the Reign of Kin Baldwin IV and Crusader Art at the Time of King usalem in 1187 King Baldwin V to the Eall of Jer

CHAPTER 11

901 410 474

Conclusions

481

Notes

605

Gazetteer

613

Bibliography

637

Bibliographic Addendum

639

General Index

660

Personal Proper Names Index Index of Manuscript Repositories

671

vi

List of Illustrations

Color Plates Introduction

Forty-one color plates are included in The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land as an important complement to the black-andwhite photos that constitute most of the documentation. The color illustrations include a selection of architecture and painting, especially manuscript illumination, as well as icons, mosaics, and frescoes, and important examples of the minor arts, such as goldsmiths’ work, ivory carving, silk embroidery, and coins. It is worth commenting on the importance of color for these works of Crusader art. The information these color illustrations convey about the works of art reproduced is striking. In each medium, the colorism is distinctive even if in many cases the original appearance is lost and must be reconstructed. 1. The manuscript illustrations are important because they come the closest to retaining their original appearance, and they give us genuine examples of the richness and distinctiveness of Crusader art. Sumptuous color, often associated with a Byzantine palette, is handled with a strong independent aesthetic. The introduction of bold Western blue and red is visible in the second half of the century. 2. The mosaics are also impressive in quality, although their condition is often much deteriorated. The examples offered here include gold and silver, and mother-of-pearl, associated with opulent purple, and other colors that render striking visual effects. 3. The goldsmiths’ work must have been much more important in the Middle Ages as pilgrims’ souvenirs than it is today at the same holy sites. The gold is worked in a variety of techniques, boldly complemented with strongly coloristic use of semiprecious stones. 4. The ivories have suffered much loss of paint. The survival of red and black paint and the bright blue stones visible today give us only a partial indication of their original colorism. Gilding - no longer clearly visible without a microscope — was employed over most of the surface to produce a splendid effect closely related to that of goldsmiths’ work.

5. Only one known example of Crusader silk embroidery has been identified so far. The sumptuous use of silver threads (argyrokentitos) couched on silk with red, green, and blue embroidered equal-armed crosses reflect the love of precious metals and the dramatic coloristic effects of Crusader art seen in other media. 6. The major coinage was done in gold, billon — an alloy of silver and copper containing less than 50 percent silver — and copper. The miniature sculpture of the coins featured raised inscriptions, abstract decorative elements, and imagery. Although akin to the goldsmiths’ work in some aspects of technique and aesthetic, coinage relied on its design and metal color alone, unenhanced by additional paint and other materials. 7. The architecture and monumental stone sculpture are the most difficult to reconstruct in terms of their original appearance. Creamy-white limestone for major masonry gives Jerusalem a golden hue in the rising and setting sun. The limestone was abundantly available from local quarries. Stark white marble, sometimes dramatically veined, often spolia from elsewhere and usually recarved, is also an important material resource but less abundant. It is important to recall that much architectural sculpture was surely painted with the same strong colors found in the manuscripts, metalwork, and mosaics. Unfortunately, the architecture and the architectural sculpture has suffered the most from weathering so that few examples retain paint visible to the naked eye. Finally, it is important to bear in mind that the environment of Crusader art was visually striking. It is not surprising that the colorism of the art and architecture was intense because of the brilliant sun and the vivid quality of the light, which varied according to location: whether along the coast, in the hills and mountains, or in the desert. Syria-Palestine is a land of sharp contrasts in climate — it can be snowing in Jerusalem, yet balmy in Jericho only twenty miles away; there are bold geological features - mountains run to and along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea from Antioch, Tripoli, and Beirut to Acre and Haifa; and there are dramatic changes in geography, from the snow-capped peak of Mount Hermon to Lake Tiberius and the Dead Sea, well below sea

level, to the deserts of Syria, Jordan, and the Sinai. The inten-

sity of the visual environment must have been an important

factor in the coloristic range and strength of Crusader art. Color Plates

Bethlehem, Church of the Nativity: column painting of the

Virgin and Child Glykophilousa, ca. 1130. PLATE 1. Frontal view. PLATE 2. Left side.

Reliquary of the True Cross from the Monastery of the Holy Sepulcher, Denkendorf, ca. 1130. PLATE 3. Front. Pate 4. Back.

Sacramentary from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, 1128-1130 (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, Ms. McClean

49). PLatE 5. Folio 4v, V(ere dignum), headpiece with Christ and

angels. PLATE 6. Folio 5r, P(er quem), initial P with seraph. PLATE 7. Folio 7r, T(e igitur), decorated initial.

Psalter of Queen Melisende from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, ca. 1135 (London, British Library, Ms. Egerton 1139).

southeast vault of the Calvary Chapel, ca. 1149. PLATE 21. View of the Franks’ Chapel portal to Calvary, now closed off, ca. 1149. Baptistery of the Templum Domini, Qubbat al-Mi'raj. PLATE 22. View from the west. Billon denier of King Baldwin III with the Tower of David, ca.

1152. PLATE 23. Obverse and reverse.

Billon denier of King Amaury I with the Anastasis rotunda,

ca. 1163-1164. PLATE 24. Obverse and reverse.

Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, ca. 1167 (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Ms. lat. 276). PLATE 25. Folio 36v, St. Mark seated. PLATE 26. Folio 89r, St. John seated.

Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, ca. 1167 (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Vat.

lat. 5974). Pate 27. Folio 3v, four standing evangelists. PLATE 28. Folio 411, St. Mark, seated.

Bethlehem, Church of the Nativity (sixth-century architecture, twelfth-century column paintings, and mosaics ca.

1167-1169). Miniatures

Piate 8. Folio 12v, Deésis, full-page miniature. PLATE 9. Folio 23v, B(eatus vir), historiated initial. PLATE 10. Folio 205r, Archangel Michael, headpiece.

Treasure Binding Pate 11. Ivory covers, front, scenes of the life of David. PLatE 12. Ivory covers, back, king(s) performing the corporal works of mercy. PLate 13. Embroidered silk for the spine with silver-thread embroidery and equal-armed crosses in red, blue, and green. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, ca.

PLATE 29. View of the nave, bema, and north transept.

PLATE 30. Detail: south bema wall mosaic fragment with inscription mentioning Emperor Manuel I, King Amaury I, and Bishop Ralph, with the monk Ephraim, mosaicist. Crac des Chevaliers. PLATE 31. View of the castle rebuilt ca. 1170, with later additions. PLATE 32. View of the main courtyard, looking north with

chapel (upper right), north tower of the twelfth century (upper center), and great hall and loggia of the thirteenth century (left).

1135-1140, (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Ms. lat. 12056).

Nazareth, Church of the Annunciation, ca. 1170s.

PLatE 14. Folio 121v, D(eus qui hodierna die), historiated initial with the Holy Women at the Holy Sepulcher.

PLATE 33. Grotto of the Annunciation in the lower church with Crusader foundations, piers, and masonry.

PLATE 15. Folio 170v, Q(uem laudant angeli), historiated initial

PLaTE 34. Detail: rectangular capital from the Crusader shrine of the Holy House of the Virgin: Virgin and Apostle in Hel!

with kneeling angel. Gospel of St. John from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepul-

Chatsworth Torso.

cher, ca. 1140s (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Ms. lat. 9396).

PLATE 35. Bearded figure with scroll, left side, from the west facade of the Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth.

PLATE 16. Folio 1v, St. John, seated.

Jerusalem, view of the Old City.

PLATE 36. Detail: Right side of bearded figure with scroll.

PLATE 17. View looking west from the Mount of Olives, with the Golden Gate, the Aqsa Mosque (Templum Salomonis),

Bible selections, ca. 1180s (Biblioteca Guarneriana, San Danieli del Friuli, Ms. II).

the Dome of the Rock (Templum Domini), and the Church of

PLATE 37. Folio 28r, I(n anno), historiated initial for Haggai.

the Holy Sepulcher.

PLATE 38. Folio 156v, E(t), historiated initial for the Maccabees.

Jerusalem, Church of the Holy Sepulcher. PLATE 19. View of the south transept facade from the parvis,

PLATE 39. Folio 208v, A(pocalipsis), historiated initial for the Book of Revelations.

ca. 1149.

PLATE 40. Detail: folio 236v, P(aulus), historiated initial for

PLATE 20. View of the mosaic of the Ascending Christ in the

Paul’s Epistle.

PLATE 18. View from the southeast, ca. 1140s—1150s.

viii

Icon of six saints, Monastery of St. Catherine, Mt. Sinai, ca. 1180s, before 1187. PLATE 41. (Above) St. Paul, St. James the Greater, St. Stephen;

(below) St. Lawrence, St. Martin of Tours, St. Leonard of Limoges.

PLATE 2.3. Bethlehem: exterior of the Church of the Nativity, west facade. 31 PLATE 2.4. Aerial view of Jerusalem in the 1920s, looking north with Neby Samwil on the horizon. 31 PLATE 2.5. View of Jerusalem in 1975 from the Mount of

Olives. 32 PLATE 3.1a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: tomb of

Maps 1. Main routes of the First Crusade

22

2. The Crusader States: 1100

47

3. The Crusader States: 1118

77

4. The Crusader States: 1131

120

5. The Crusader States: 1146

176

6. The Crusader States: 1174

332

7. Crusader Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century 8. Syria-Palestine in the Twelfth Century: North 9. Syria-Palestine in the Twelfth Century: South

411 606 607

Figures

FiGuRE 1. Location of the tombs of the Crusader kings in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

39

FiGureE 2. Location of the images on the columns in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, by 1192. FIGURE

3. Byzantine

Church

of the Holy Sepulcher,

FicuRE 9. Hospital of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem: plan. 275

FicurE 10. Location of the images on the columns in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, ca. 1160. 365

Plates

PLATE 1.1. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: ee portals, south transept facade. PLATE 1.2. Ramla: Bir al-Annezieh, A.D. 789 (Cistern of

PLATE across PLATE east. PLATE east.

pate, 2. 50 PLaTE 4.4. Copper folle of Edessa: Richard of the Principate, 3. 50 PLATE 4.5. Copper folle of Edessa: Baldwin II “armed man.”

93

Jerusalem: plan. 177 FicurE 4. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: plan of the Constantinian, Byzantine, and Crusader masonry. 178 FicurE 5. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: plan of the church and the canons’ cloister. 180-181 FicurE 6. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: diagram of the location of the mosaics in the Calvary Chapel. 235 FIGURE 7. Qubbat al-Mi‘raj: plan with location of the capitals. 254 Ficure 8. Church of the Ascension: plan with location of the capitals. 260

Helena).

Godefroy de Bouillon. 38 PLATE 3.1b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: entry to the Adam Chapel (1992). 39 PLATE 3.2. Sword and spurs said to be those of Godefroy de Bouillon, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem. 40 PLATE 3.3. Billon denier of Valence. 41 PLATE 3.4. Billon denier of Lucca. 41 PLatE 3.5. Copper folle of Edessa: Baldwin Class I. 41 PLATE 4.1. Seal of King Baldwin I. 46 PLATE 4.2. Copper folle of Edessa: Richard of the Principate, 1. 50 PLATE 4.3. Copper folle of Edessa: Richard of the Princi-

7:

2.1. Constantinople, view of the city from the north, the entrance to the Golden Horn. 25 2.2a. Antioch, view of the city in the 1920s, looking 26 2.2b. Antioch, view of the city in the 1970s, looking 27

PLATE PLATE PLATE PLaTE

4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9.

Copper coin of Antioch: Bohemond I. Copper coin of Antioch: Tancred, 1. Copper coin of Antioch: Tancred, 2. Tomb of Bohemond, Canosa, Apulia.

PLaTE 4.10a. Castle of Gibelet (Jubail): plan. PLATE 4.10b. Castle of Gibelet (Jubail): view.

51 51 52 52 53 54 55

PLaTE 4.11. Jerusalem: Sabil of Suleiman opposite the Gate of the Chain (Bab al-Silsila, Bab al-Sakina).

56

PLATE 4.12. Billon denier of Tripoli: Bertrand of Tripoli. 56 PLaTE 4.13a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem, canons’ cloister: plan. 58 PLATE 4.13b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem, canons’ cloister: view of the cloister area with the Dome of St. Helena’s chapel. 58 PLaTE 4.13c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem, canons’ cloister: view of the partial vaults of the refectory. 59 PLaTE 4.13d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem, canons’ cloister: view of the bent-angle column capitals on the west wall. 59 PLATE 4.13e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem, canons’ cloister: detail of architectural sculpture on arch at the northwest corner area. 59 PLate 4.14. Chapel of St. Helena, Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: view of the interior with pointed arches, central dome.

61

PLATE 4.15a. Shaubak Castle: distant view.

70

PLATE 4.15b. Shaubak Castle: castle walls.

70

PLATE 4.16a. Church of St. John (now the Great Mosque),

Beirut: plan.

71

PLATE 4.16b. Church of St. John, Beirut: view of the exterior,

71

apse end.

PLATE 4.16c. Church of St. John, Beirut: detail of corbels on

71 72

apse end. PLate 4.17a. Church of St. John, Gibelet: plan.

PLATE 4.17b. Church of St. John, Gibelet: view of the church

72 from the west. PLATE 4.17c. Church of St. John, Gibelet: view of the baptis73 tery. PLATE 4.18. Crusader imitation of Fatimid bezant of the 74 Caliph al-Amir. 74 PLate 4.19. Tomb of Baldwin I. PLATE 5.1a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: Breydenbach woodcut of the aedicule. 80 , m: PLATE 5.1b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher Jerusale Amico plan of the aedicule. 80 m: r, PLATE 5.1c. Church of the Holy Sepulche Jerusale aedicule, frontal view. 80 m: r, Jerusale PLATE 5.1d. Church of the Holy Sepulche aedicule, view from the north, looking down. 81 m: r, Jerusale PLATE 5.1le. Church of the Holy Sepulche 81 aedicule, view from the south, looking down. PLate 5.1f. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: aedicule, interior view. 81 PLATE 5.2. Seal of Patriarch William I of Jerusalem: (a) 82

obverse; (b) reverse.

PLATE 5.3a. Tyre: aerial view of the city. 85 86 PLATE 5.3b. Tyre: cathedral, plan. PLaTE 5.4. Copper-and-silver coin of Edessa: Baldwin II, 88

short cross.

PLaTE 5.5. Billon coin of Edessa: Baldwin II,long cross. 88 PLATE 5.6. Copper coin of Antioch: Roger of Salerno, Virgin orans. 88 PLaTE 5.7. Copper coin of Antioch: Roger of Salerno, St. George. 88 PLATE 5.8. Copper coin of Antioch: Roger of Salerno, stand-

ing Christ. PLaTE 5.9. Copper coin of Tripoli: Moneta Tripolis. PLatE 5.10. Copper coin of Tripoli at the time of Bertrand. PLaTE 5.11. Bezant of Caliph al-Amir. PLATE 5.12. Bezant of Caliph al-Mustansir.

88 89 89 89 89

PLATE 5.13. Jerusalem bezant from the time of Baldwin

Il. 90 PLaTE 5.14a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — Virgin and Child Glykophilousa, overall frontal view.

91

PLATE 5.14b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem:

painting — Virgin and Child view, left. PLaTE 5.14c. Church of the painting — Virgin and Child view, right. Pate 5.14d. Church of the

column

Glykophilousa, overall frontal 91 Nativity, Bethlehem: column Glykophilousa, overall frontal 92 Nativity, Bethlehem: column

painting — Virgin and Child Glykophilousa, detail of the upper

92

part of the image, left.

PLATE 5.14e. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem:

column

painting - Virgin and Child Glykophilousa, detail of the upper 92 part of the image, right. Piate 5.14f. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting - Virgin and Child Glykophilousa, detail of the male 94 pilgrim, left. PLatE 5.14g. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — Virgin and Child Glykophilousa, detail of the female

pilgrims, right.

95

PLATE 5.15. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paint-

6 ing — St. Brasius. PLATE 5.16. Reliquary of the True Cross from Denkendorf:

98

wooden core from the front.

PLATE 5.17a. Reliquary of the True Cross from Denkendorf: front. 98 PLatE 5.17b. Reliquary of the True Cross from Denkendorf: back. og PLATE 5.18a. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 92r, initials S(piritus ...) and D(eus...) with musical annotation. 100

PLATE 5.18b. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 11v, initials A(d te animam ...) and E(xcita . . .) with musical annotation. 101 PiaTE 5.18c. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 90r, initials V(iri galilei) and C(oncede . . .) with musical annotation. 101 PLATE 5.18d. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 144v, initials S(upplicafionem.. .) and F(amulis . . .) with musical annotation. 101 PLATE 5.19a. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 4r, initial P(er omnia. . .). 102 PLATE 5.19b. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 5r, initial P(er quem. ..). 102 PLATE 5.19c. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem:

fol. 4v, initial

V(ere

dignum . . .) 102 PLATE 5.19d. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 71, initial T(e igitur...).

103

PLATE 5.19e. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 11y, initial R(esurrexi . . .). with musical annotation. 103 PLATE 5.19f. Sacramentary fragment from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: fol. 6y, initial Q(vem laudant...).

103

PLATE 5.20a. Castle of Saone: plan.

106

PLATE 5.20b. Castle of Saone: view, the “needle.”

106

PLATE 5.20c. Castle of Saone: view, Crusader towers 5 and 6,

looking south with Mamluke “minaret.”

107

PLATE 5.20d. Castle of Saone: view, dungeon.

107

PLATE 5.20e. Castle of Saone: view, remains of the Crusader church, looking west. 108

PLATE 5.21a. Qalat Subeibe: plan.

109

PLATE 6.8g. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

PLATE 5.21b. Qalat Subeibe: plan, dungeon. 109 PLATE 5.21c. Qalat Subeibe: view, dungeon, looking east. 109 PLATE 5.22a. Fortified town of Banyas: plan. 110

PLATE 6.8h. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 139 miniature, fol. 4v, Transfiguration.

PLATE 5.22b. Fortified town of Banyas: view, tower on the eastern wall. 110

PLATE 6.8i. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 140 miniature, fol. 5r, Raising of Lazarus.

PLATE 5.23. Mt. Tabor: church, plan.

111

PLaTE 5.24. Magna Mahumeria (Al-Bira): church, plan. 111

PLaTE 5.25. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: tomb of

Baldwin II.

114

PLATE 6.1. Beth Gibelin (Beit Govrin/Beit Jibrin): reused

Byzantine capital. PLATE 6.2a. Castle PLATE 6.2b. Castle PLATE 6.3a. Castle PLATE 6.3b. Castle

of Belfort: plan. of Belfort: coupe transversale. of Kerak: plan. of Kerak: view from the south.

123 127 127 128 129

PLATE 6.3c. Castle of Kerak: view of Crusader fortifications at

the north end. 129 PLATE 6.4a. Convent of Bethany: plan. 132 PLATE 6.4b. Convent of Bethany: sculptural fragment (lion). 132 PLATE 6.4c. Convent of Bethany: sculptural fragment (standing man with a scroll). 132 PLATE 6.5. Convent of St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, plan.

133

PLATE 6.6a. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: plan.

133

PLATE 6.6b. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: exterior, west

miniature, fol. 4r, Temptation of Christ.

139

PLATE 6.8j. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 140

miniature, fol. 5v, Entry into Jerusalem.

PLATE 6.8k. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 140 miniature, fol. 6r, Last Supper. PLATE 6.81. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 140 miniature, fol. 6v, Washing of the Feet. PLATE 6.8m.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 141

miniature, fol. 7r, Agony in the Garden.

PLATE 6.8n. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 141 miniature, fol. 7v, Betrayal of Judas. PLATE 6.80. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 141 miniature, fol. 8r, Crucifixion.

PLATE 6.8p. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 8v, Descent from the Cross.

141

PLATE 6.8q. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 142 miniature, fol. 9r, Lamentation. PLATE 6.8r. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 142

miniature, fol. 9v, Harrowing of Hell.

PLATE 6.8s. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 10r, the Holy Women at the Sepulcher. 142

134

PLATE 6.8t. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament 142 miniature, fol. 10v, Doubting Thomas.

PLATE 6.6c. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: exterior from the east end. 134

PLATE 6.8u. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 11r, the Ascension. 143

facade.

PLATE 6.6d. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: interior, nave. 134 PLATE 6.6e. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: interior, nave

sculpture, Matthew, northeast apse pier corbel.

134

PLATE 6.6f. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: interior, nave

sculpture, apse window capital.

135

PLATE 6.6g. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: interior, south

aisle sculpture, pilaster capital. 135 PLATE 6.7a. Templum Domini: grille in situ. 137 PLATE 6.7b. Templum Domini: grille, detail, sections taken out of storage (1975).

137

PLATE 6.7c. Templum Domini: grille, detail, section (1975).137

PLATE 6.8v. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 11v, Pentecost. 143 PLATE 6.8w. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 12r, Death of the Virgin. 143 PLATE 6.8x. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 12v, Deésis. 143

PLATE 6.9a. Psalter of Queen Melisende: calendar, fol. 16v,

July with lion medallion.

144

PLATE 6.9b. Psalter of Queen Melisende: calendar, fol. 171,

August with Virgine medallion.

144

PLATE 6.9c. Psalter of Queen Melisende: calendar, fol. 18r,

PLATE 6.8a. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 1r, the Annunciation. 138

October with scorpion medallion.

PLATE 6.8b. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

138

PLATE 6.9d. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol. 23v, initial B(eatus . . .). 145

PLATE 6.8c. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

PLATE 6.9e. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol.

miniature, fol. lv, the Visitation.

miniature, fol. 2r, the Nativity.

138

PLATE 6.8d. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 2v, Adoration of the Magi. 138 PLATE 6.8e. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

miniature, fol. 3r, Presentation in the Temple.

139

144

24r, illuminated text page, ... vir qui.... 146 Plate 6.9f. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol. 24v, decorated text page, S(ed in lege . . .). 147 PLATE 6.9g. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol. A6v, initial D(ominus illuminatio . . .). 147

PLATE 6.8f. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

PLATE 6.9h. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol.

miniature, fol. 3v, Baptism of Christ.

60v, initial D(ixi custodiam . . .).

139

147

PLATE 6.9i. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol. 147 74y, initial D(ixit insipiens . . .).

PLATE 6.12). Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher 161 fol. 214y, initial V(eneranda . . .) with Death of the Virgin.

PLATE 6.9}. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol.

PLATE 6.12k. Missal from the scriptorium of the |! loly Sepulcher: fol. 121v, initial D(eus . . .) with the Holy Women at the

89y, initial S(alvvm me.

. .).

148 PLATE 6.9k. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol.

Sepulcher.

106v, initial E(xultate deo .. .).

PLATE 6.13a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

148

161 164

PLATE 6.91. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials — fol.

painting — Elijah, overall view.

139v, initial D(ixit dominus . . .).

PLATE 6.13b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

148

PLATE 6.9m. Psalter of Queen Melisende: text and initials —

painting — Elijah, detail, left, with plants in landscape.

148 fol. 197v, text page with blank space. PLATE 6.9n. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces with saints — fol. 202v, Virgin and Child headpiece. 149 PLATE 6.90. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces with saints — fol. 205r, St. Michael headpiece. 149 e: panel headpieces PLaTE 6.9p. Psalter of Queen Melisend

PLATE 6.13c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

with saints — fol. 206r, St. John the Baptist headpiece.

nursing Jesus. 164 PLATE 6.15a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — Deésis before restoration. 166 PLATE 6.15b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — Deésis after restoration. 166 PLATE 6.15c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — Virgin and Child after restoration. 166 PLATE 6.15d. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — Etimasia after restoration. 166

painting — Elijah, detail, right, with birds in landscape.

164

PLATE 6.14a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — Virgin and Child Galaktotrophousa, overall view.164

PLATE 6.14b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — Virgin and Child Galaktotrophousa, detail, Virgin

149

PLATE 6.9q. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces with saints — fol. 206v, St. Peter headpiece. 149 PLATE 6.9r. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces

with saints — fol. 207v, St. John the Evangelist headpiece.

150 PLATE 6.9s. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces 150 with saints — fol. 208r, St. Stephen headpiece. PLATE 6.9t. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces with saints — fol. 209r, St. Nicholas headpiece. 150 PLATE 6.9u. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces with saints — fol. 210r, St. Mary Magdalene headpiece. 150

PLATE 6.15e.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem:

Chapel paintings — St. Stephen after restoration.

PLATE 6.9v. Psalter of Queen Melisende: panel headpieces

Chapel paintings — St. Peter after restoration.

Deésis

167

PLATE 6.15f. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem:

151 with saints — fol. 211v, St. Agnes headpiece. PLATE 6.10a. Psalter of Queen Melisende: treasure binding — ivory covers, front. 152

Deésis

167

PLATE 6.16. Reliquary of the True Cross, Barletta: (a) front; (b)

back. 168 PLATE 6.17. Reliquary of the True Cross, in Augsburg from Kaisheim: (a) front; (b) back. 168 PLATE 6.18. Billon denier of Jerusalem: Fulk (1) Sepulcher. 170

PLATE 6.10b. Psalter of Queen Melisende: treasure binding —

153 ivory covers, back. PLATE 6.11. Psalter of Queen Melisende: treasure binding 154 embroidered silk spine. PLATE 6.12a. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 168r, initial P(er ommia secula . . .). 159 PLATE 6.12b. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 169r, initial P(er quem maiestatem . . .). 160 PLATE 6.12c. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 168v, initial V(ere dignum . . .) 160 PLATE 6.12d. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 187r, initial D(eus . . .) with Virgin and Child. 160 PLATE 6.12e. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 199v, initial D(eus . . .) with St. John the Baptist. 160 PLATE 6.12f. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 165v, initial D(eus . . .) with St. Peter. 160 PLaTE 6.12g. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 1711, initial T(e igitur . . .) 161 PLATE 6.12h. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepul-

PLATE 6.19. Billion denier of Jerusalem: (a) obverse: (b) reverse. Fulk (2) True Cross. 171 PLaTE 6.20. Billion denier of Jerusalem: (a) obverse; (b) 171 reverse. Fulk (2) True Cross. PLATE 6.21. Billion denier of Jerusalem: (a) obverse; (b)

reverse. Fulk (2) True Cross. PLATE 6.22. Tripoli copper: “horse and cross.”

PLATE 6.23. Billon denier of Antioch: Raymond “bare-head denier.”

171

171 of Poitiers, 172

PLaTE 7.1. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: View of the church across the Muristan (1861). 182 PLATE 7.2a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

tectural Survey, 1992): exterior — general view from the southeast, on tower of the Church of the Redeemer. 182

PLATE 7.2b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): exterior — view of the south transept

cher: fol. 222r, initial S(upplicationem .. .) and F(amulis . . -) 161

facade from the parvis. 183 PLATE 7.2c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

PLATE 6.12i. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy

Sepulcher: fol. 170v, initial Q(uem laudant .. .) with

kneeling angel.

164

tectural Survey, 1992): exterior — view of the south transept facade with the Franks’ Chapel. 184

161

xii

PLATE 7.2d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): exterior — view of the south transept facade

showing central two-story facade.

tectural Survey, 1992): interior — north transept arcade (ground level), looking west from the Prison of Christ. 195

185

PLaTE 7.3p. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

PLATE 7.2e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

tectural Survey, 1992): interior — north transept aisle (ground

tectural Survey, 1992): exterior — view of the south transept

level), looking east toward the ambulatory.

facade showing double portal.

PLATE 7.3q. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

PLATE 7.2f. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, tectural Survey, 1992): exterior — view of canons’ cloister, with dome of St. Helena’s foreground. PLATE 7.3a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher,

185

tectural Survey, 1992): interior — north transept aisle (ground

Jerusalem (Archithe apse from the Chapel in the left 186 Jerusalem (Archi-

tectural Survey, 1992): interior — rotunda, general view.

195

level), looking west.

196

PLATE 7.3r. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — north gallery (first-story level), looking south toward the rotunda. 196 PLATE 7.3s. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — north transept gallery (firststory level), looking west toward the rotunda. 197

187

PLATE 7.3b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view in the rotunda, southeast toward the domed crossing. 188 PLATE 7.3c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view in the rotunda, southeast toward crossing, showing paired columns flanking arched opening to former apse, with Byzantine brickwork in the wall masonry. 189

PLATE 7.3t. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — from south transept, view of

PLaTE 7.3d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

the Greek Calvary Chapel, looking east. 197 PLATE 7.3u. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — from south transept, view of the Franciscan Calvary Chapel, looking east. 198 PLATE 7.3v. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem

tectural Survey, 1992): interior - domed crossing with four pendentives. 189

transept, looking east toward Greek Calvary Chapel.

PLATE 7.3e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

PLATE 7.3w. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

tectural Survey, 1992): interior - domed crossing with pendentives on south and west sides and blocked-up window toward the rotunda. 190 PLaTE 7.3f. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view east to choir vault and apse from domed crossing. 190 PLATE 7.3g. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — choir elevation on north side, seen from domed crossing. 191 PLATE 7.3h. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view into choir vaulting from domed crossing. 191

tectural Survey, 1992): interior — view to east of south

(Architectural Survey, 1992): interior —- view into south

198

transept, past Anointing Stone to Adam Chapel and Greek Calvary Chapel. 199 PLATE 7.3x. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

tectural Survey, 1992): interior — view to southwest of south transept, past Anointing Stone to main portal. 199 PLATE 7.3y. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view of vaulting in south transept. 200 PLATE 7.3z. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior - view of Adam

Chapel (ground level under Greek Calvary Chapel), looking north. 200 PLATE 7.3aa. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior - view of the Chapel of St. Helena, looking east from northwest corner. 201 PLATE 7.3bb. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — grotto of the Holy Cross, looking southeast. 201 PLATE 7.4a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture — ambulatory capital, north side. 204 PLaTE 7.4b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture — pilaster capital with eagle, at entry door to north sacristy, northwest side. 205 PiatE 7.4c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture — pilaster capital with hand, at entry door to north sacristy, northeast side. 205 PLate 7.5. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the Adam Chapel — double capital. 206 PLATE 7.6a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture inthe north transept aisle — view of the north gallery: 206

PLATE 7.3i. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

tectural Survey, 1992): interior —- view toward the rotunda from the choir. 192 PLATE 7.3j. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view east down into apse.192

PLATE 7.3k. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view into ambulatory from the north aisle. 193 PLATE 7.31. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — view of east end of ambulatory from the south side. 193 PLATE 7.3m. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

tectural Survey, 1992): interior — view of ambulatory, looking swouthwest toward Adam Chapel from entry down to St. Helena’s Chapel. 194 PLATE 7.3n. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Architectural Survey, 1992): interior — north transept,

ground level, looking east toward the Prison of Christ. 194 PLATE 7.30. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem (Archi-

xiii

PLATE 7.6b.

Church

right (east) portal of the double portals with the linte]

of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem:

removed.

interior sculpture in the north transept aisle - winged

Solomon capital.

206

PLATE 7.6c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior

sculpture in the north transept aisle - winged Solomon capi206 tal, front face and left side. Piate 7.6d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north transept aisle - winged Solomon capital, right (north) side.

blown capitals, and abaci.

215

PiatE 7.8d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture ~

207

detail, hood molding.

215

PLatE 7.8e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture —

PLaTE 7.6e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north transept aisle — mask-interlace-andacanthus double capital. 207 PLATE 7.6f. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north transept aisle — double capital with monsters in acanthus, front detail.

215

PLATE 7.8c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture — detail, left (west) door with hood molding, godroons, wind-

detail, abacus molding extended.

216

PLate 7.8f. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculp-

ture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture detail, first-story molding. 216

207

PLatE 7.8g. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture 216 detail, second-story hood molding. PLATE 7.8h. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture detail, windblown capitals on the second-story windows. 216 PLATE 7.8i. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture — detail, second-story cornice molding. 216 PLaTE 7.8). Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculp-

PLATE 7.6g. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north transept aisle — double capital with monsters in acanthus, left front detail. 207 PLATE 7.6h. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north arcade — view of entrance to the Prison of Christ. 208 PLATE 7.61. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north arcade — Prison of Christ, Daniel Capital, general view. 209 PLATE 7.6}. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north arcade — Prison of Christ, Daniel Capital, right side, detail. 209 PLATE 7.6k. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: interior sculpture in the north arcade — Prison of Christ, Daniel Capital, left side, detail. 209 PLATE 7.7a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the domed crossing, exterior - dome over crossing, with corbels. 210 PLaTE 7.7b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the domed crossing, exterior - dome with corbels, detail, southeast quadrant. 210 PLATE 7.7c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculp-

ture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture —

Franks’ Chapel, general view. 217 PLATE 7.8k. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture — Franks’ Chapel, interior looking north with closed portal into 218 Franciscan Calvary Chapel. Pate 7.81. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture -

Franks’ Chapel, south side moldings.

219

PLaTE 7.8m. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculp-

ture for the south transept facade, figural sculpture — Franks’

ture for the domed crossing, exterior — corbels, detail, with

Chapel, south side moldings, detail (lions). 219 PLaTE 7.9a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the figural and vine-scroll lintels: left (west) portal

for the domed crossing, exterior — corner corbels, detail, with

220 with the figural lintel in place. PLaTE 7.9b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: scu!pture for the vine-scroll lintel, right (east) portal with the vine-

bearded male head and floral design. 210 PLate 7.7d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture

architectural and geometric designs. 211 PLATE 7.7e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the domed crossing, exterior — corbel, detail, with geometric design. 211 PLaTE 7.7f. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the domed crossing, interior — dome over crossing, interior view from southwest. 211 PLaTe 7.8a. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade; nonfigural sculpture — left (west) portal of the double portals with the lintel removed.

scroll lintel in place.

220

PLATE 7.9c. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel — detail, left side, before conservation.

220

PLATE 7.9d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel, scene 1 — detail, Christ raising Lazarus, after conserva-

tion. 221 PLATE 7.9e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel, scene 2 — detail, Mary and Martha, after conservation. 221 PLaTE 7.9f. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel, scene 2 — Christ on the Globe, after conservation.

215

221

PLATE 7.9g. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel, scene 3 — Christ sending forth an apostle, after conservation. 221

PLATE 7.8b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: sculpture for the south transept facade, nonfigural sculpture —

xiv

PLATE 7.9h. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural

PLATE 8A.3b. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Templum Domini

lintel, scene 4 — detail, restored scene of the Fetching of the

(Dome of the Rock) — view in the 1980s, exterior.

She-Ass, after conservation.

222

250

PLATE 8A.3c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Templum Domini

Pate 7.9i. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural

(Dome of the Rock) — view, interior.

lintel, scene 5 - detail, Crowds at the Entry to Jerusalem, after 222 conservation.

PLATE 7.9}. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural 222 lintel, scene 6 — detail, Last Supper, after conservation.

Pate 8A.4. (Dome of the Piate 8A.5a. general view,

PLATE 7.9k. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vine-

PLATE 8A.5b. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

scroll lintel — left side, before conservation.

lantern on top of the dome.

222

256 capitals E1. — al-Mi'raj Qubbat Jerusalem: Sharif, al Haram 8A.5d. PLate 256 capitals E1R.

223

Pate 7.9m. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vine223 scroll lintel — right side, before conservation. PLATE scroll Pate scroll

PLATE 8A.5e. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi raj —

7.9n. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vinelintel — detail, centaur, after conservation. 223 7.90 Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vinelintel — detail, nude male figure, after conservation. 224

capitals E1L.

256 capitals IIR. Piate 8A.5g. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj — 256 capitals E2. PLATE 8A.5h. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-My raj — 256 capitals E2R.

224

PLaTE 7.9q. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vine224 scroll lintel — detail, predatory bird, after conservation. PLATE 7.9r. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vinescroll lintel — Fatimid sculpture on the reverse of the vine224 scroll lintel. mosaic Jerusal s Sepulch Holy em: the er, PLate 7.10a. Church of 230 Amaury Patriar the . of seal — ch paintin and gs PLATE 7.10b. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: mosaics and paintings — Christ mosaic in the Calvary 237 Chapel. PLATE 7.10c Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: mosaics and paintings — fragment, fresco painting of the Cru239 cifixion.

PLATE 8A.5i. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

256 capitals E2L. — al-Mi'raj Qubbat PLATE 8A.5j. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: 256 capitals I2L. PLATE 8A.5k. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj — 256 capitals I2R. PLATE 8A.51. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mr raj 257 capitals E3. PLATE 8A.5m. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Miraj —

capitals E3R.

244 244

plan.

247

capitals E3L. capitals I3R. capitals I3L.

capitals E4L.

capitals E4R. capitals I4R. PLATE 8A.5t. Haram capitals I4L. Pate 8A.5u. Haram capitals E5L. PLATE 8A.5v. Haram capitals E5R. PLate 8A.5w. Haram capitals ISL/R.

PLATE 8A.2c. Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem: view, 249

257

PLATE 8A.5s. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

248

(Dome of the Rock) — view in the 1920s, exterior.

257

PLATE 8A.5r. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

PLATE 8A.2b. Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem: capital, 248

257

Piate 8A.5q. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi raj —

248

entrance to the main nave from the south porch.

257

PLATE 8A.5p. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Miraj —

PLATE 8A.2a. Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem: plan and ele-

nave.

257

PLATE 8A.50. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

PLATE 8A.1. Neby Samwil: Church of St. Samuel, Montjoie,

vation.

257

PLATE 8A.5n. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi raj —

PLatE 7.10d. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: mosaics and paintings — voussoir mosaics above the tympanum of the blocked door in the Franks’ Chapel. PLATE 7.10e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: mosaics and paintings — view of tesserae on the lower part of 242 the tympanum of the right (east) portal. 244 t. southeas the from view general : Campanile 7.11a. PLATE the from stories upper the of view : PLATE 7.11b. Campanile southwest. PLATE 7.11c. Campanile: detail, the eastern upper story.

256

PLATE 8A.5f. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

PLateE 7.9p. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vinescroll lintel — detail, vine scrolls, after conservation.

55

PLATE 8A.5c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mr raj —

PLATE 7.91. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vine-

scroll lintel — central part, before conservation.

250

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Silsila Chain). 254 Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj — from the north. 255

PLATE 8A.3a. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Templum Domini

Xv

257

al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mrraj —

57

al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

258 al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Miraj 258

al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi‘raj — 258

PLATE 8A.6r. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: southeast

PLATE 8A.5x. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi raj —

258 capitals E6R. PLATE 8A.5y. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj — 258 capitals I6R.

capital/impost 11.

PLATE 8A.5aa. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Miraj —

PLATE 8A.6t.

PLATE 8A.6s. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: southeast

capital /impost 12.

265

PLATE 8A.6u. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: south capi-

PLate 8A.5bb. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi raj —

tal/impost 13.

258 — raj al-Mi' Qubbat Jerusalem: PLate 8A.5cc. Haram al Sharif, 258 E7L. capitals PLate 8A.5dd. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj 258 — capitals I7R.

capitals E7R.

265

PLate 8A.6v. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: south capi-

tal/impost 14.

265

PLATE 8A.6w. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: southwest capital/impost 15.

265

PLATE 8A.6x. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: southwest

PLATE 8A.5ee. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

capital/impost 16.

259

capitals I7L.

264

Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: south

side.

258

capitals I6L.

264

265

PLATE 8A.7a. Entrance to the Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: the Beautiful Gate, Bab al-Silsila, view looking east. 267

Pate 8A.5ff. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

259 capitals E8R. PLate 8A.5gg. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj — 259 capitals E8L.

PLATE 8A.7b. Entrance to the Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: the

PLATE 8A.5hh. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Mi'raj —

Beautiful Gate, Bab al-Silsila and Bab al-Sakina, partial interior view, looking east. 267

capitals ISR.

PLATE 8A.7c.

259

Entrance to the Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem:

Pate 8A.5ii. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubbat al-Miraj — capitals I8L. 259

the Beautiful Gate, Bab al-Sakina, interior left side, look-

PLaTE 8A.6a. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: general view, from the south. 261

Piate 8A.7d. Entrance to the Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: the

PLatTE 8A.6b. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: west side. 262

PLATE 8A.7e. Entrance to the Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: the

ing east.

Beautiful Gate, Bab al-Silsila, double capital, detail. Beautiful Gate, Bab al-Sakina, double capital, Daniel.

PLATE 8A.6c. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: impost 1. 262

PLATE 8A.6e. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: northwest side. 262

main entrance, left side.

capital /impost 3. 262 PLATE 8A.6g. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: northwest 262

Piate 8A.8b. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Templum Salomo-

nis (Aqsa Mosque) — facade, arcade interior.

PLATE 8A.9a. Double capitals from the Crusader cloister,

PLATE 8A.6j. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: north capi-

Bethlehem: double capital with eagles.

263

mals.

PLaTE 8A.6l. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: northeast

263

Bethlehem: double capital with figures. PLATE 8A.9d.

capital/impost 8.

Jerusalem.

263

Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: east

271

Capital from St. Peter in Gallicantu, 272

PLaTE 8A.9e. Capital from St. Peter in Gallicantu, Jerusalem:

264 PLate 8A.60. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: east capi-

detail, griffins, left side.

272

PLATE 8A.10. Jerusalem: Mosque al-Omariyya: Englemann lithograph. 276

tal/impost 9. 264 PLATE 8A.6p. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: east capital/impost 10. 264 PLATE 8A.6q. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: southeast side.

271

PLaTE 8A.9c. Double capitals from the Crusader cloister,

PLATE 8A.6m. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: northeast

side.

271

PLATE 8A.9b. Double capitals from the Crusader cloister, Bethlehem: double capital with monsters devouring ani-

PLaTe 8A.6k. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: northeast side. 263

PLATE 8A.6n.

270

PiaTE 8A.8c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Templum Salomonis (Aqsa Mosque) —- Omariyya mihrab, left side. 271

PLatE 8A.6i. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: north capital/impost 5. 263

capital /impost 7.

269

PLATE 8A.8a. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Templum Salomonis (Aqsa Mosque) — facade, general view. 270

Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: north 263

tal/impost 6.

269

figure. 269 PLaTE 8A.7g. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Qubba Nahwiyya,

PLATE 8A.6f. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: northwest

PLATE 8A.6h. side.

268

PLATE 8A.7f. Entrance to the Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: the Beautiful Gate, Bab al-Sakina, double capital, standing male

PLateE 8A.6d. Church of the Ascension, Jerusalem: impost 2. 262

capital/impost 4.

268

PLATE 8A.11a. Church of St. Mary Latin, Jerusalem: nort door. 277

PLaTE 8A.11b. Church of St. Mary Latin, Jerusalem: voussoit details: September. 277

264

xvi

PLATE 8A.11c. Church of St. Mary Latin, Jerusalem: voussoir 277 details: November. PLATE

8A.11d.

PLATE 8B.7b. Reliquary of the True Cross; Abbey of Carboeiro, now in Santiago da Compostella: back. 294 PLATE 8B.8. Ampulla from the Holy Sepulcher (1), now in Berlin: (a) front, Holy Sepulcher; (b) back, Holy Women at the

Church of St. Mary Latin, Jerusalem: voussoir

details: Sol/Luna.

277

the Muristan: (1) capital (left side) — angel and Zachariah. 279

Sepulcher. 295 PLATE 8B.9. Ampulla from the Holy Sepulcher (2), now in

Piars 8A.12b. Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

Berlin: (a) front, Crucifixion; (b) back, Anastasis.

the Muristan: (1) capital (right side) — Visitation.

PLATE 8B.10a. Reliquary from the Church of St. John the Baptist, now in the Greek Orthodox patriarchate: front. 297 PLATE 8B.10b. Reliquary from the Church of St. John the Baptist, now in the Greek Orthodox patriarchate: back. 298 PLATE 8B.10c. Reliquary from the Church of St. John the Baptist, now in the Greek Orthodox patriarchate: side. 298 PLATE 8B.11. Ascalon, church decorated in the Crusader period: (a) Dado, painted decoration; (b) equal-armed crosses, fragmentary painted remains. 3 PLATE 8B.12a. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus: plan. 303 PLATE 8B.12b. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus: detail, west facade. 303 PLATE 8B.12c. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus: detail, west facade lancet, left side. 304 PLaTE 8B.12d. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus: south side with buttresses. 304 PLaTE 8B.12e. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus: nave. 305 Pate 8B.12f. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus: enlarged pier. 305 Piate 8B.13a. Church of St. John, Ramla: plan. 306 PLaTE 8B.13b. Church of St. John, Ramla: nave, looking east. 307 PLate 8B.13c. Church of St. John, Ramla: pier capitals. 307

Piare 8A.12a. Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

279

PLATE 8A.12c. Sculpture reported to have been excavated in the 279 Muristan: (2) capital — St. John the Baptist. PLATE 8A.12d.

Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

the Muristan: (3) voussoir/molding fragment—hunter.

279

PLATE 8A.12e. Sculpture reported to have been excavated in the Muristan: (4) voussoir — standing male figure.

280

PLATE 8A.12f. Sculpture reported to have been excavated in the Muristan: (5) corner console with two standing male figures, left side.

280

Piate 8A.12g. Sculpture reported to have been excavated in the Muristan: (5) corner console with two standing male figures, right side. 280 Pate 8A.12h. Sculpture reported to have been excavated in the Muristan: (6) Corinthian capital.

280

PLaTE 8A.13a. Gospelbook of St. John from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 1v, evangelist portrait of St. John. 282 PLaTE 8A.13b. Gospelbook of St. John from the scriptorium 283 of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 2r, illuminated initial I. Pate 8A.14. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. Cataldus. Pate 8A.15. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: painting — St. Vincent

PLATE 8A.16. painting — St. PLATE 8A.17. painting — St.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Anne Nikopoia. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Stephen.

PLate 8A.18.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem:

PLATE 8B.13d. Church of St. John, Ramla: facade with west

PLATE 8B.2. Billon denier of Jerusalem: Baldwin III “Tower of David.” 289

PLATE 8B3a. Reliquary of theTrueCross—Scheyern: engraving. 291 PLATE 8B.3b. Reliquary of the True Cross —Scheyern: case. 291 PLATE 8B.4. Portable altar, Cathedral of Agrigento, Sicily: (a) front; (b) back; (c) detail, side; (d) detail, stamped 292 design. PLATE 8B.5. Reliquary of the True Cross; Ste. Foi, Conques:

307 308

PLATE 8B.14b. Church of St. John, Gaza: view, ca. 1918.

308

west portal. 309 capital. 309 the Baptist, Sebaste: 310 Baptist, Sebaste: view 310 Baptist, Sebaste: nave, 311

Pate 8B.15d. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: single capital on side wall. 311 PLATE 8B.15e. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: double capital on side wall. 311 Pate 8B.15f. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: portal capital — Herod’s banquet, left. 311 Piate 8B.15g. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: portal capital — Herod’s banquet, right. 312 PLATE 8B.15h. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: portal capital: Salome, left. 312

293

PLATE 8B.6. Reliquary of the True Cross, Louvre, Paris: (a) front, cross in case; (b) back of cross. 293 PLATE 8B.7a. Reliquary of the True Cross, Abbey of Car-

boeiro, now in Santiago da Compostella: front.

portal. Piate 8B.14a. Church of St. John, Gaza: plan. PLatE 8B.14c. Church of St. John, Gaza: Piate 8B.14d. Church of St. John, Gaza: PLATE 8B.15a. Cathedral of St. John plan. PLATE 8B.15b. Cathedral of St. John the of the west end. PLATE 8B.15c. Cathedral of St. John the triple capitals at springing of vaults.

painting — St. Macarius. PLATE 8A.19. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. Onuphrius. 285 PLATE 8B.1. Jerusalem: citadel with the Tower of David. 289

front.

296

294

xvii

PLATE 8B.26b. Tomb of Queen Melisende, Jerusalem — detail, decoration of the arch into the Tomb of Queen Melisende, with masons’ marks. 325

PLATE 8B.15i. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: Salome, right. 312 PLATE 8B.15j. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: por312 tal capitals left, Salome, right — death of St. John.

PLATE 8B.26c. Tomb of Queen Melisende,

tal capital — lion, right.

Jerusalem:

east-west section of the Tomb of Queen Melisende.

PLATE 8B.15k. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: por312

PLATE

8B.26d.

Tomb

of Queen

Melisende,

325 Jerusalem:

PLATE 8B.15l. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: lion capital, three men on front. 312

north-south section of the Tomb of Queen Melisende.

PLATE 8B.16a. Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John

Jehoshaphat: plan.

the Baptist, Sebaste: view (1940s).

PLATE 8B.27b. Tomb Jehoshaphat: entrance.

PLATE

314

PLATE 8B.16b. Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John

the Baptist, Sebaste: frescoes in crypt, view.

314

Tomb

in the Valley of

of the Virgin

in the Valley of 326

315

PLATE 8B.16e. Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John

PLATE 8B.27e.

the Baptist, Sebaste: angel, left.

Jehoshaphat: sculptural decoration

315

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

315

PLATE 8B.18a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — King Olaf II, frontal view. 316 PLATE 8B.18b.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

painting — King Olaf II, view, right side

316 PLATE 8B.18c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — King Olaf II, female pilgrim 316

PLATE 8B.19a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. George, view, left side 316 PLATE 8B.19b.

painting — St. John the Baptist. 317 PLATE 8B.21a. Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: plan. 319 PLaTE 8B.21b. Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: view. 320 PLATE 8B.21c. Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: capital 1 (east). 320 PLATE 8B.21d. Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: capital 2 (north). 321 PLATE 8B.21e. Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: capital 3 321

PLATE 8B.21f. Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: capital 4 (Islamic Museum). 321 PLATE 8B.22. Jerusalem, Haram: summer pulpit of Cadi Burhan ed-Din — detail, siren. 321 PLATE 8B.23. Jerusalem, Haram: abacus detail, siren.

PLATE PLATE PLaTE PLATE

8B.24a. 8B.24b. 8B.25. 8B.26a.

Church of St. Anne, Sephoris: view. Church of St. Anne, Sephoris: plan. Belmont: Cistercian Abbey, plan. Tomb of Queen Melisende, Jerusalem: plan.

on exit lintel of the

Sepulcher: fol. 56r, evangelist portrait, St. Luke. 340 PLATE 9.3d. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy

316

PLaTE 8B.20. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

(west).

of the Virgin in the Valley of

PLATE 9.3c. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

painting — St. George, view, right side

Tomb

tomb. 327 PLATE 8B.27f. Tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Jehoshaphat: sculptural decoration on exit lintel of the tomb, detail. 327 PLATE 9.1. Billon denier of Jerusalem: Amaury I Holy Sepulcher. 335 PLaTE 9.2. View of the interior of the Holy Sepulcher by B. Amico. 336 PLATE 9.3a. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 36v, evangelist portrait, St. Mark. 338 PLATE 9.3b. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 38r, initial P(rincipium . . .). 339

PLaTe 8B.17a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — King Knute IV, view, left side. 315 PLATE 8B.17b.

326

Piate 8B.27d. Tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Jehoshaphat: 307 drawing, aedicule of the tomb with cupola.

PLATE 8B.16d. Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John

painting — King Knute IV, view, right side.

325

of the Virgin

PLATE 8B.27c. Tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Jehoshaphat: view down the entrance stairs to the tomb, with 307 the Tomb of Melisende on the right.

PLATE $B.16c. Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: frescoes in apse. 314 the Baptist, Sebaste: frescoes under the altar.

8B.27a.

Sepulcher: fol. 58r, initial Q(uoniam . . .).

340

PLATE 9.3e. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the

Holy Sepulcher: fol. 58v, initial F(uit . . .).

340

PLATE 9.3f. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy

Sepulcher: fol. 89r, evangelist portrait, St. John. 341 PLatE 9.4a. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 3v, four standing evangelists. 342 PLATE 9.4b. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 4v, canon table arches. 343 PLATE 9.4c. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy

Sepulcher: fol. 10v, evangelist portrait, St. Matthew.

343

PLaTE 9.4d. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 41r, evangelist portrait, St. Mark. 344 PLATE 9.4e. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy

321

Sepulcher: fol. 62v, evangelist portrait, St. Luke. 344 PLATE 9.4f. Gospelbook from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher: fol. 94v, evangelist portrait, St. John. 345 PLate 9.5. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: church exterior, nave. 348

322 322 323

325

XVili

Pyare 9.6. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: church exterior, 348 apse end.

Piate

9.7. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: church interior,

nave, looking east.

349

Pave 9.8a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: bilingual inscription in the bema, south wall location, general view. 349

PLATE5 9.8b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: bilingual inscription.

350

Piare 9.9. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: angel in the

north clerestory with inscriptions identifying “Basilius” in

Latin and Syriac, detail.

351

Piate 9.10. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave, south wall, detail — council arcade with letters “B” and “C.”

351

PLATE 9.22b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: angel, north wall mosaics, signed by Basilius. 357

PLATE 9.22c. south wall. PLATE 9.23a. Christ, south PLATE 9.23b. Christ, south PLATE 9.23c. Christ, south PLATE 9.23d.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: general view, 357 Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: ancestors of wall mosaics — view 1. 358 Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: ancestors of wall mosaics — view 2. 358 Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: ancestors of wall mosaics — view 3. 358 Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: ancestors of Christ, south wall mosaics — view 4. 358 PLATE 9.24. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: church inte-

PxaTE 9.11. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave, south

rior, nave, looking west.

wall, detail: council arcade with letter “F.”

351

PLATE 9.25. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: church inte-

PLATE 9.12a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: north transept mosaics — Incredulity of Thomas and Ascension fragments, general view. 352

rior, bema, north wall, panel decorated with interlace. 359 PLATE 9.26a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Theodosius. 367 PLATE 9.26b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Sabas. 367 PLATE 9.26c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Anthony. 367 PLATE 9.26d. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Euthymius. 367 PLATE 9.27a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Fusca. 368 PLATE 9.27b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Marina I. 368 PLATE 9.27c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Leo. 368 PLATE 9.28a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. John the Evangelist. 368 PLATE 9.28b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Cosmas. 369 PLATE 9.28c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Bartholomew. 369 PLATE 9.28d. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Marina II. 369 PLATE 9.29a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, plan. 372 PLATE 9.29b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, entry, north side. 373 PLATE 9.29c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, entry, south side. 373 PLaTE 9.29d. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, looking east. 374 PLATE 9.29e. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, manger grotto. 74 PLATE 9.29f. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, mosaic in grotto (1992). 375 PLATE 9.29g. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity — general view. 375 PLATE 9.29h. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto

PLATE 9.12b.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: north

transept mosaics — detail, Incredulity (Christ). PLATE 9.12c.

352

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: north

transept mosaics — detail, Incredulity (Thomas). 352 Piate 9.13a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: north transept mosaics — Ascension fragment, detail (Apostles). 353 PLATE 9.13b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: north transept mosaics — detail (Virgin). 353 PLate 9.14. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: south transept mosaics: Transfiguration and Entry into Jerusalem fragments. 354 PLATE 9.15. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics, south wall, ecumenical councils —- Constantinople I, left side. 354 PLATE 9.16. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics, south wall, ecumenical councils — Constantinople I, right

side.

354

PLATE 9.17a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics, south wall, ecumenical councils — Chalcedon, left

side.

355 PLATE 9.17b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics, south wall, ecumenical councils —Chalcedon, es

side.

PLATE 9.18. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics, north wall, provincial councils — Antioch, left side.

355

PLATE 9.19. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics,

north wall, provincial councils — Sardika, center. 355 PLATE 9.20a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics, north wall — view of jeweled cross, Sardica and Antioch.

356

PLATE 9.20b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Ciampini

engraving of the north wall mosaics.

356

PLATE 9.21. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: nave mosaics, north wall (east end) — detail, vase and floral motif with deco-

356 PLATE 9.22a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: clerestory

rative panel.

angels in mosaic — general view, north wall.

357

359

PLATE 9.35e. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of

of the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity - diagram of extant 376 remains. PLATE 9.29i. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity, detail — Virgin with

inscription.

376

PLATE 9.29). Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity, detail — Virgin with

PLATE 9.35h. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de 387 Piellat — north apse fresco (Deésis).

376

manger.

Comte de

386 Piellat — view of crypt. Piate 9.35f. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de Piel386 lat — central apse fresco (Anastasis). PLaTE 9.35g. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de 386 Piellat — south apse fresco (Paradise).

PLATE 9.29k. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity, detail - Christ in

PLATE 9.351. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de Piellat — north wall, bay 2 (Koimesis, right side). 387

377

PLATE 9.35j. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de Piel-

manger.

PLATE 9.29]. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto

of the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity, detail — St. Joseph, ani377

mals, Magi.

PLATE 9.29m. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of 377 the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity, detail - Shepherd. PLATE 9.29n. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Cave-Grotto of the Nativity, mosaic of the Nativity, detail - Washing of Christ. 377 PLATE 9.30a. Jerusalem: Damascus Gate Chapel fresco frag380 ments — head of angel. PLATE 9.30b. Jerusalem: Damascus Gate Chapel fresco fragments — drapery of angel. 380 PLATE 9.30c. Jerusalem: Damascus Gate Chapel fresco fragments — haloed head. 380 PLATE 9.30d. Jerusalem: Damascus Gate Chapel fresco fragments — east wall painted dado, with other fragments. 380 PLATE 9.31. Jerusalem: Gethsemane, Church of the Agony fresco fragment — head of angel. 381 PLATE 9.32a. Jerusalem: Oratory of St. Stephen, incised altar — general view. 381 PLATE 9.32b. Jerusalem: Oratory of St. Stephen, incised altar — detail. 381 PLATE 9.33a. Abu Ghosh: Hospitaler church — view from west. 382 PLATE 9.33b. Abu Ghosh: Hospitaler church — plan. 382

394

Belvoir Castle: sculptural fragments — head of 395 Belvoir Castle: sculptural fragments — bearded frontal. 395 Belvoir Castle: sculptural fragments — bearded

head of man, right side view.

395

PLATE 9.37b. Crac des Chevaliers: view from southwest (west

side). 399 PLaTE 9.37c. Crac des Chevaliers: view from southeast (east side) with chapel indicated by arrow. 399 PLATE 9.37d. Crac des Chevaliers: chapel plan.

400

PLATE 9.37e. Crac des Chevaliers: view of chapel interior,

looking east. 400 PLATE 9.37. Crac des Chevaliers: view of chapel interior, looking west. 400 PLATE 9.37g. Crac des Chevaliers: fresco — Presentation in the Temple, general view. 401 PLATE 9.37h. Crac des Chevaliers: fresco — Presentation in the Temple, detail. 401 PLATE 9.37i. Crac des Chevaliers: Baptismal Chapel: plan. 401 PLATE 9.37). Crac des Chevaliers: Virgin Hodegetria enthroned and St. Pantaleon, in situ with grid (ca. 1928). 401

PLATE 9.34d. Abu Ghosh: Hospitaler church, frescoes — detail,

384

PLATE 9.37k. Crac des Chevaliers: Virgin Hodegetria enthroned with angel, as stored on provisional armature in castle (1979), 401 PLATE 9.371. Crac des Chevaliers: St. Pantaleon on framed

Abu Ghosh: Hospitaler church, frescoes —

details, Koimesis on north wall (right side). 384 PLATE 9.35a. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de Piellat — view of interior. 385 PLATE 9.35b. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de Piellat — section, north-south. 385

armature as displayed in Castle restaurant (1980s).

402

PLATE 9.37m. Crac des Chevaliers: Horse of St. George, with

fish below, in situ with grid (ca. 1928).

PLATE 9.35c. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de Piellat — section, east-west. 385 PLATE 9.35d. Abu Ghosh: Watercolor Album of Comte de

Piellat — plan of crypt.

PLATE 9.36b. Belvoir Castle: view.

PLatE 9.36f. Belvoir Castle: sculptural fragments — angel with book. 396 PLATE 9.36g. Belvoir Castle: sculptural fragments — bentangle column. 396 PLATE 9.36h. Belvoir Castle: sculptural fragments — pilaster fragment. 396 PLATE 9.37a. Crac des Chevaliers: plan. 398

Anastasis in central apse. 384 PLATE 9.34b. Abu Ghosh: Hospitaler church, frescoes — view, Paradise in south apse. 384 PLATE 9.34c. Abu Ghosh: Hospitaler church, frescoes — detail, Deésis in north apse. 384

PLATE 9.34e.

387 394

PLATE 9.36c. boy. PLATE 9.36d. head of man, PLATE 9.36e.

PLATE 9.34a. Abu Ghosh: Hospitaler church, frescoes — detail,

Crucifixion on south wall.

lat — south wall, bay 2 (Crucifixion, detail, Synagoga). PLATE 9.36a. Belvoir Castle: plan.

402

PLATE 9.38. Icon of the Twelve Feasts, St. Catherine’s, Mt. Sinai. 407

385

PLaTE 10.1. Castle of Hunin.

XX

413

Piars 10.2. Church of the Resurrection, Nablus: west

Bort

415

Piste 10.3a. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: plan of the Crusader church and plan of the Franciscan church of the eighteenth century. 416

PiaTe 10.3b. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: plan of the shrine-grotto of the Annunciation.

416

PLave 10.3c. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: model of

the Crusader shrine-grotto of the Annunciation.

416

PiatTe 10.3d. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: elevation of the Crusader shrine-grotto of the Annunciation. 417 Pate 10.4a. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

of the Annunciation, St. James capital — St. James confronts sorcerers. 423 Piate 10.5i. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of the Annunciation — St. James baptizes Josias. 424 PLATE 10.5). Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of

the Annunciation — martyrdom of St. James. 424 PLaTE 10.5k. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of the Annunciation, St. Matthew capital — King Eglypus. 425 PLaTE 10.51. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of the Annunciation — St. Matthew and Iphegenia with King Hyrtacus. 425

portal; sculptural fragments — archivolts, general view as cur-

PLATE 10.5m. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of the Annunciation — view of the five Nazareth

rently displayed.

capitals in the Convent Museum (before 1955).

418

PLATE 10.4b. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

portal; sculptural fragments — detail, archivolt with inscription fragments. 418 PLATE 10.4c. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

portal; sculptural fragment — detail, archivolt with animal.

418

Piate 10.4d. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

portal, tympanum fragments — head of Jesus, fragment, frontal view.

418

PLATE 10.4e. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

portal, tympanum fragments —sandaled feet of Jesus.

419

PLaTE 10.4f. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

portal, tympanum fragment — face of the angel on the left. 419 Pate 10.4g. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western portal, tympanum fragment — torso and legs of the angel on the right. 41 PLATE 10.4h. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

portal, statue-colonne — torso of St. Peter.

419

PLATE 10.41. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

419 portal, statue-colonne — drapery fragment, 1. Pate 10.4j. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western 419 portal, statue-colonne — drapery fragment, 2. PLATE 10.4k. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: western

portal, statue-colonne — cap. 420 aedicule Nazareth: PLATE 10.5a. Church of the Annunciation,

of the Annunciation — colonette fragment.

420

PLATE 10.5b. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of the Annunciation, St. Thomas capital - Apostles, left side.

420

PyaTe 10.5¢c. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule

of the Annunciation — St. Thomas.

421

Pate 10.5d. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule

of the Annunciation — Christ. PLATE

10.5e.

Church

of the Annunciation,

421 Nazareth:

aedicule of the Annunciation, St. Peter capital — St. Peter and Tabitha.

422

PLATE 10.5f. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of the Annunciation: Christ 422

PLaTE 10.5g. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule of the Annunciation: St. Peter in Lake Galilee.

423

PLATE 10.5h. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: aedicule

426

PLaTE 10.6a Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals for the piers of the nave, Virgin capital — Virgin leads the Apostle through hell. 426 PLATE 10.6b. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals for the piers of the nave, detail - Virgin capital, armed demons on the left side. 427 PLATE 10.6c. Church of the for the piers of the nave, demons on the right side. PiaTe 10.6d. Church of the for the piers of the nave —

Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals detail - Virgin capital, armed 427 Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals St. Peter and Tabitha capital (left

side, detail).

428

PLate 10.6e. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals for the piers of the nave — St. Peter and Tabitha capital, St. Peter, right side. 428 PLATE 10.6f. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals

for the piers of the nave — Battle of Men and Demons capital (battle, left side).

428

Prate 10.6g. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals

for the piers of the nave — Battle of Men and Demons capital (battle, central part).

428

Piate 10.6h. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals for the piers of the nave — Battle of Men and Demons capital (battle, right fragment) 429 Piate 10.6i. Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth: capitals for the piers of the nave — acanthus capital with mask (detail,

mask). PLate 10.7. Paired heads from Nazareth. PiatE 10.8. Small figural fragment. PLatE 10.9. Double capital for corner emplacement.

429 429 429 430

PLATE 10.10. Architectural sculpture.

430

PLATE 10.11a. Chatsworth Torso: general view.

432

PLATE 10.11b. Chatsworth Torso: detail, drapery.

432

PLATE 10.11c. Chatsworth Torso: detail, scroll.

432

PLATE 10.12a. Mt. Tabor, sculptural fragments: aedicule roof fragment. 437 PLaTE 10.12b. Mt. Tabor, sculptural fragments: small figure fragment with polychromy. 437

PLaTE 10.13a. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — view, looking northwest. 44)

PLATE 10.13v. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al- \qsa: The

PLATE

PLATE 10.13w. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: triplex capitals, northwest

10.13b.

Haram

al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-

Aqsa: The Dikka — view, looking southwest.

442

Dikka — detail, lion on balustrade, north side, west end.

447

PLate 10.13c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The

end.

Dikka — balustrade and cornice, north side, east end.

Piate 10.14a. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al- Aqsa:

443

Piate 10.13d. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, east side, north end. 443 PLATE 10.13e. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, east side, south end. 443 PLATE 10.13f. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, south side, east end. 443

reused sculpture — large south wall panel.

447

448

PiaTeE 10.14b. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

reused sculpture — small south wall panel.

448

PLaTE 10.14c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Agga:

reused sculpture — Saladin Mihrab capital, west side.

448

Prate 10.14d. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

PLaTE 10.13g. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-

reused sculpture — Saladin Mihrab capital, east side.

Agsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, south side, cen-

PLATE 10.15a. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock:

tral section.

444

PLATE 10.13h. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The

Dikka — balustrade and cornice, south side, west end.

444

PLaTE 10.13i. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The

Dikka — balustrade and cornice, west side, south end. Hd PLaTE 10.13j. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: triplex capitals and columns, northwest end. 444 PLaTE 10.13k. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Agqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: single capital, central north side. 445 PLaTE 10.131. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: triplex capitals and columns, northeast end. 445 PLATE 10.13m. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

The Dikka — capitals and abaci: view of triplex capitals and central capital, south side. 445 PLATE 10.13n. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci, detail: triplex capital on southeast corner. 445 PLaTE 10.130. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: single capital, central south side. 446 PLATE 10.13p. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Agsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: triplex capitals, southwest end. 446 PLATE 10.13q. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Agsa:

The Dikka — capitals and abaci: detail, southwest corner aba-

cus (eagle’s head). PLaTE 10.13r. Haram al Sharif, The Dikka — capitals and abaci: cus (capped man’s head). PLaTE 10.13s. Haram al Sharif, The Dikka — capitals and abaci: cus (ram’s head).

446 Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: detail, southwest corner aba446 Jerusalem, Mosque al-Agsa: detail, southwest corner aba446

PLATE 10.13t. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque alAqsa: The Dikka — platform slab, underside with Fatimi d carving. 447 PLaTe 10.13u. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade, north side, central section. 447

reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, view.

448

449

PLATE 10.15b. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock:

reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, tympanum.

449

PLATE 10.15c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock:

reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, capital on the left side. 450 PLaTE 10.15d. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock:

reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, capital on the right side. 450 PLATE 10.16a. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 1. 452

PLATE 10.16b. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 1, detail of the abacus with two heads — female and bearded male. 453 PLaTE 10.16c. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 1, detail of the abacus with two heads — boy and an owl. 453 PLATE 10.16d. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 1, detail of the abacus with two heads — bearded male with a cap,andaram. 453 PLATE 10.16e. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 2, view with

dog or wolf. 454 PLATE 10.16f. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 2, view with

side view of bird.

454

PLATE 10.16g. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 2, view with

paired frontal eagles.

454

PLATE 10.17a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

paintings — St. James, frontal view.

157

PLATE 10.17b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

paintings — male pilgrim with St. James.

457

PLATE 10.17c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

paintings — male pilgrim, detail. 457 PLATE 10.17d. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — female pilgrim, detail.

458

PLATE 10.17e. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

paintings — St. Leonard. 458 PLATE 10.17f. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Damian. 458 PLATE 10.18a. Stele at Bethphage (after restoration): view. 459

PLATE 10.18b. Stele at Bethphage (after restoration): detail. PLATE 10.19. Six Saints icon from St. Catherine’s, Mt. Sinai.

459 461

PLATE 10.20a. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli: fol. 24r, initial O, for Naum. 463

E for

.20b. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli: fol. 28r, initial J, haggal. 463

i 10.20c. for Proverbs.

P A,

PI

for

E, for

Bible of San Danieli del Friuli: fol. 35r, initial P 464

PLATE 10.20f. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli: fol. 205v, initial A, for Apocalypse. 465 PLATE 10.20g. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli: fol. 236v, initial 465 P, for Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.

10.20d. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli: fol. 131y, initial

PLATE 10.21. Tomb of Baldwin V.

Judith.

PLATE

464

0.20e. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli: fol. 154y, initial _ side.

Maccabees I.

464

Xxiil

10.22.

The Coenaculum,

468 interior view,

northeast

470

Preface

This book forms part of a historical study on the nature and development of Crusader art in the immediate context of the Holy Land and in the broader setting of Europe and the Mediterranean world between 1098 and 1291. In this first volume, I have attempted to tell the story of Crusader artistic developments from the taking of Antioch in 1098 up to Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem in 1187, with full awareness of the historical

circumstances in the Crusader States. In a subsequent

volume, I hope to address further developments from 1187 to the fall of Acre in 1291, mindful of the enormous

changes in the Latin East, the impact of the

Fourth Crusade in 1204 and its aftermath, and the important new role of Cyprus after 1191. Because the research for this project goes back to my

first visit to the Near East in 1973, there are many persons and many institutions — too many to attempt to

name here — who have greatly assisted and generously supported me along the way. I have tried to recognize all of them in the various publications that have appeared in the earlier stages of this project.

| started writing this book in the fall of 1987 while appointed as a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial fellow, resident at the National Humanities Center in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. For the academic year 1987-1988, the University of North Carolina

also awarded me a Pogue Grant to be on leave, and the Delta Delta Delta endowment of the National Humanities Center provided me with a research stipend to

assist with my work abroad. The conceptualization of

the main theses of this book, the difficult weeks of getting started with the writing, and the long exciting

process of reconstructing what we know of Crusader art and artistic sensibilities thus began and was 60 percent completed under these auspicious circumstances. I am deeply grateful to the Guggenheim Foundation, to the National Humanities Center, and to my university for the substantial and timely support they provided, without which this project could not have taken shape under such optimum conditions. The last chapters of the book were written between 1989 and 1992, and the final revisions were done in the summers of 1992 and 1993. I am greatly indebted to the University Research Council of the University of North Carolina for helping to support this work in the summers of 1991 and 1992, indeed for continued support through the years. I wish to thank the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia for a timely research grant in the summer of 1992 that enabled me to visit the Near East in order to wrap up and review my field work by resolving problematic loose ends, by acquiring needed photographs, and by checking sites and monuments for accuracy and current conditions. I hope that the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Humanities Center, the American Philosophical Society, and the University of North Carolina, along with other agencies who support research in the humanities and who have assisted me over the years,

will find their generosity at least partly justified by this book. Funding for research in the humanities requires a significant leap of faith on the part of the granting institution as to the worth of the project and significant trust in the individual scholar that the project will be done. I am truly grateful to these institutions for their

supwillingness to invest their financial resources in

the porting my work. I hope they will be pleased with

result. Over the years there have been numerous

colmatnumis y, leagues in archeology, art history, histor ics, and other fields who have assisted me with this study. The notes bear testimony to many of these scholars, but I should like to mention a few colleagues with whom I have had especially fruitful professional interaction: Eugenio Alliata, Francois Avril, Bellarmino Bagatti (t) Dan Bahat, Martin Biddle, T.S.R.

Boase

(+), Alan Borg, Caroline Bruzelius, Hugo

Buchthal, Michael Burgoyne, Annemarie Weyl Carr,

Carolyn Connor, Giles Constable, Charles Couasnon (t), Pierre Coupel (+), Anthony Cutler, Erica Dodd,

Peter Edbury, Ilene Forsyth, Pamela French, George Galavaris, David Ganz, Dorothy Glass, Philip Grierson, Bernard Hamilton, Richard Harper, Harry Haz-

ard (+), Lucy-Anne Hunt, R.B.C. Huygens, Benny

Kedar, Nurith Kenaan-Kedar, Herbert Kessler, Bianca Kiihnel, Gustav Kiihnel, David Jacoby, Zehava Jacoby,

Hans E. Mayer, Michael Metcalf, Heribert Meurer, Inna Mokretsova, Ruth Morgan (+), Doula Mouriki

(+), Robert Nelson, Robert Ousterhout, Valentino Pace, Richard Pfaff, Michele Piccirillo, John Porteous,

Joshua Prawer (+t), Denys Pringle, Jean Richard, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Nancy Sevéenko, Larry Stager, Alan Stahl, Frauke Steenbock, Alison Stones, Neil Stratford, Lee Striker, Archie Walls, Kurt Weitzmann

(+), John Wilkinson, and Joseph Wittig. Among the excellent graduate students I have worked with over the years, I should like to thank the

following persons especially for their stimulating seminar contributions: Jane Hetherington Brown, Linda

in Jerusalem, the Byzantine Library of the Collége de the France in Paris, the Center for Advanced Stucly in

Visual Arts in the National Gallery of Art, Wash ington, D.C., the Collection of the Dukes of Devonshire at

Chatsworth, the Courtauld Institute in Loncon, the Walter Davis Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Dahlem Museum in Berlin, the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies in Washington, D.C., the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, The Harvard Semitic Museum in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Library of the Institut Catholique in Paris, the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in Paris, the Israel Antiquities

Authority in Jerusalem, the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., the Monastery of St. Catherine at

Mount Sinai, the Musée des Paris, the Musée du Louvre Archaeological Museum in Museum in Damascus, the

Princeton Jerusalem, versity of Francaise

monuments francais in in Paris, the National Istanbul, the National Rockefeller Library at

University, the Rockefeller Museum in the Joseph C. Sloane Art Library of the UniNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Société de Photographie in Paris, the Studium Bib-

licum Franciscanum

in Jerusalem, the Victoria and

Albert Museum in London, the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, the Warburg Institute in London, and the

Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum in Stuttgart. I should also like to thank photographers Jerry Blow and Buz Sawyer (Chapel Hill), Elia and George Kavejian (Jerusalem), Richard Cleave and Garo Nalbandian (Jerusalem), and John Crook FSA (Archeological Consultant, Winchester Cathedral) for their contributions to the

visual documentation in this book. For the maps, | want to express my gratitude to Patricia Neumann for her careful work. The text of this book has benefited from a critical reading by several long-suffering colleagues. | wish to

Docherty, Nell Gifford-Martin, Robert Hobbs, Genevra Kornbluth, Rebecca Martin, Henrietta McBee Tye, Sheila McTighe, Elizabeth Teviotdale, Carolyn Watson,

and Lila Yawn.

thank Annemarie Weyl Carr, Dorothy Glass, Jonathan

My research on Crusader material has been facilitated by many persons in many places. I would like to thank the following institutions for assistance and access to their collections: the American Schools of Ori-

Riley-Smith, and Alison Stones for their careful perusal and critical comments on the entire manuscript, and I should like to thank Barbara Watkinson for a close reading of chapter 7. They have assisted me enormously in telling both accurately and effectively the story | am iry-

ental Research with centers in Jerusalem and Amman, the American University in Beirut, the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, the Biblioteca Angelica in Rome,

ing to present. Several persons have also been of sigriifi-

the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Vatican City, the

cant editorial help to me in the improvement of my

Biblioteca Guarneriana at San Danieli del Friuli, the

rative prose. Beside Professors Glass and Weyl Carr, ! would also like to thank Julia McVaugh and Allison Day

Biblioteca Hertziana in Rome, the Bibliothéque d’ Art et

nar-

d’Archéologie (Fondation Doucet) in Paris, the Biblio-

for specific editorial suggestions to revise and strengthen

théque Nationale in Paris, the Bodleian Library in

the written presentation. For the indexes, I would like to thank Roberta Engleman for her meticulous labors. Let me say emphatically how much I appreciate the contri-

Oxford, the British Library in London, the British Museum in London, the British School of Archaeology

XXVi

butions these persons have made to this study, and let

me also

state clearly that all remaining blemishes are

solely my responsibility.

I was very pleased when Cambridge University my Press accepted this work. I would like to express

lively gratitude to my excellent editor, Beatrice Rehl,

and her able assistants for their tireless efforts to trans-

form this study from manuscript to book. Francoise Bartlett, who oversaw the production process, and

Dick Schroeter, who did the page-by-page layouts, also deserve special thanks. Finally, let me say that a publication like this one is an expensive proposition. I would like to thank Cam-

bridge University Press and the following agencies for support and special subventions in the process of publishing this book: the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the University Research Council of the University of North Carolina, and the Endowment Committee Publications Fund of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of North Carolina. The person to whose memory I dedicate this book is Dorothy E. Miner. I studied medieval manuscripts with her and worked as a research assistant for her at the Walters Art Gallery for four splendid years

while pursuing graduate studies at the Johns Hopkins University. As Keeper of Manuscripts at the Walters she offered me direct experience of the books she collected and treasured, her special enthusiasm

for book illumination, and unique training in the

study of medieval art. She also taught me unforgettable lessons about dealing with people, about teaching, about individualism, and about intellectual probity. When she died in 1973, I was too green as a 1 beginning scholar to contribute to her Festschrift. her to hope these gatherings can somehow be known many years later. In any case, something of her vivacious spirit and probing intellect lives on in whatever is good in this book. I Finally, I want to say that in carrying out this study rful wonde my of have enjoyed the unfailing support their wife and two daughters. I am truly grateful for for and vors endea genial interest in my intellectual lived all have we their love and affection while together with Crusader art for many years.

JE. July 15, 1994 Carolina North Hill, Chapel

Xxvil

Abbreviations

H.Hagenmeyer, ed., Fulchri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymitana (1095-1127), Heidelberg, 1913. Gesta Francorum = Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. R.A.B. Mynor, trans. R. Hill, London, 1962. HC, I, 11, Ill, IV, V, VI = K.M. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades, vol. I, ed. M.W. Baldwin, 2nd ed., Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1969; vol. II, 2nd ed., eds. R.L. Wolff and H.W. Hazard, Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1969; vol. III, ed. H.W. Hazard, Madison and London, 1975; vol. IV, ed. H.W. Hazard, Madison and London, 1977; vol. V, eds. N.P. Zacour and H.W. Hazard, Madison and London, 1985; vol. VI, eds. H.W. Hazard and N.P. Zacour, Madison and London, 1989. The Horns of Hattin = The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z.

AB = The Art Bulletin, New York. ANSMN = American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes, New York. Anna Comnena, Alexiad = Anne Comnéne, Alexiade, ed. and trans. B. Leib, S.J., vol. II, Paris, 1943. AOL, L, Il = Archives de l’Orient Latin, ed. P. Riant, vol. I, Paris, 1881, vol. 2, Paris, 1884.

BAR = British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. BEFAR = Bibliothéque des Ecoles Frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome, Paris. BMMA = Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. BM = The Burlington Magazine, London. CA = Cahiers Archéologiques, Paris. CCK], see: Pringle, CCKYJ, I. CCM = Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, Poitiers. CHR = The Catholic Historical Review. Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century = Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, BAR International

Kedar, Jerusalem and London, 1992. IE] = Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem.

Jerusalem Pilgrimage = J. Wilkinson, ed., with J. Hill and W.F. Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1099-1185, The Hakluyt Society, second series, no. 167, London, 1988. John of Wiirzburg, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae = lohannes Wirziburgensis, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, in Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum, ed. S. de Sandoli, vol. II, Jerusalem, 1980, pp. 225-295. JSAH = Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. JWCI = Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, University of London. MGH: SS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores, 34 vols., Hannover, 1826-1934. MIFAOC = Mémoires de l'Institut Frangais d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, Cairo.

Series, 152, Oxford, 1982.

DOP = Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Washington, D.C. EHR = English Historical Review. C. Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, I, Il = C. Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés dans le royaume de Jérusalem: Architecture religieuse et civile, vols. I (with two atlases), and II, Bibliothéque Archéologique et

Historique, VII-VIII, Paris, 1925-1928. FS = Friimittelalterliche Studien, Jahrbuch des Instituts fiir

Friimittelalterforschung der Universitat Minster. Fulcher of Chartres, A History = Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127, HS. Fink, ed., trans. E.R. Ryan, New York, 1969.

Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana

= Xxix

and L.L. Hill = Raymond d’Aguilers, His

ns et Monuments Piot = Paris, Académie des Inscriptio tion Fonda res, mémoi et s ment Belles-lettres, Monu

corum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem,

trans. JH

Hill, Philadelphia, 1968.

Eugéne Piot, Paris.

RB = Revue Biblique, bibliques, couvent Jérusalem, published RHC: Occ., Ill, 1V, V =

NC = Numismatic Circular, Spink and Sons, London. NChr = Numismatic Chronicle, Royal Numismatic Society, London.

OCP = Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Vatican City, Rome.

L’Ecole ppratique dominicain Saint in Paris. Académie des Inser

Belles-lettres, Paris, Recueil des Hist Croisades: Historiens Occidentaux, vol. I, P vol. IV, Paris, 1879, vol. V, Paris, 1886, 1895

PEFQS = Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, London, to 1936, then see PEQ.

PEQ = Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London, embodying the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1937-.

RHC: Lois, 1 = Académie des Inscriptions et tres, Paris, Recueil des Historiens des Crois vol. I, Assises de Jerusalem: Assises de la B Paris, 1841.

PG = J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeco-Latina, 161 vols., Paris, 1857-1866. PL = J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, 217 vols. and 4 index vols., Paris, 1844-1864. Pringle, CCK], I = D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. I, A Corpus: A-K,

RN = Revue Numismatique, Société francaise matique, Paris.

ROL = Revue de l’Orient Latin, Paris.

Schriften der MGH = Schriften der Monumenta Historica, 26 vols., Stuttgart et al., 1938-19° Theodorich, Libellus = Theodorich, Libellus de tis, eds. M.L. and W. Bulst, Editionis

Cambridge, 1993. QDAP = Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in

genses, XVIII, Heidelberg, 1976. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, I, = H. Vincent

Palestine, Jerusalem.

Abel, Jérusalem: Recherches de Topographie, gie et d'Histoire, vol. Il, Jérusalem Nouvel and II, Paris, 1914, pp. 1-419, fasc. III, P pp. 421-668, fasc. IV, Paris, 1926, pp. 669-1

Quellen und Forschungen = Quellen und Forschungen aus italienische Archiven und Bibliotheken. Quaresmius, Historica Theologica, I, Il = F. Quaresmius,

Historica Theologica et Moralis Terrae Sanctae Elucida-

William of Tyre, Chronicon = Willelmi Archiepiscopi, Chronicon, ed. R.B.C. Huy H.E. Mayer and G. Résch, Corpus Chri: Continuatio Mediaevalis, Turnholt, 1986, \

efeleety Antwerp, 1639, 2 vols., ed. and republished by C. de Tarvisio, vol. I, Venice, 1880, vol. II, Venice,

1881. [N.B. There is also now a new abridged edition, Fr. F Quaresmii OFM, Elucidatio Terrae Sanctae, Studium Biblicum Francescanum, Collectio Maior,

and LXIII A. William of Tyre, A History = William Arc Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the

no. 32, Jerusalem, 1989.]

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum = Raimundi de Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, RHC: Occ., Ill, Paris, 1866, pp. 231-310. Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber” = Le “Liber” de Ray-

E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey, Records of ¢ vol. XXXV, New York, 1943, vols. I and II. ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palistin Berlin. ZfiirK = Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichie, | Kunstsverlag, Miinchen, Berlin.

mond d'Aguilers, ed. J.H. and L.L. Hill, Documents

relatifs a l'histoire des Croisades, IX, Paris, 1969.

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H.

XXX

foria Fray.

:

- and LI.

NN

= 5s

:

d’ études “Etienne

iptions et ITIENS des

aris, 1866,

.

Belles-let.

ades: Lois,

aute Cour,

de numis-

Germanine rT.

locis sane

Teidelberand E-M. 1’Archéolole, fascs.| aris, 1922,

035,

Tyrensis gens with tianorum,

vols. LXIll

bishop of Sea, trans. ‘ivilization, a-Vereins,

Yeutscher

>hem, Church Glykophilousa,

of the Nativity: column

1130.

Left) PLATE 1. Frontal view, left. Right) PLATE 2. Frontal view, right.

inti Virgin and Child painting of thee Virg

Lamueuntinn hed “tithehe® cd

$35

yeedee 3)

‘

; 3) —

Reliquary of the True Cross from the Monastery of the Holy Sepulcher, Denkendorf, ca. 1130. (Photos: By courtesy of the Wiirttembergisches Landesmusem, Stuttgart) (Left) PLATE 3. Front.

(Right) PLATE 4. Back.

EA he A.ir

penerveixeRamns | -AGERE-BNE SANGIE,| ‘PATONPS: AETNGD EF | PERXPMDNCD) RM.

Sacramentary from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, 1128-1130 (Cambridg e, Fitzwilliam Museum, Ms. McClean 49). (Photo: Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) PLATE 5. Folio 4v, V(ere dignum), headpiece with Christ and angels.

GELI.ADORANT

DOMINATIONES-

I TREMVNTPO

aa TESTATESCELT

at CCLORVMONR

Sacramentary from the scriptor ium

of the Holy Sepulcher, 1128-1 130 (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum. Ms. McClean 49). (Photo: Fitzwill iam Museum, Cambridge) PLATE 6. Folio 5r, P(er quem), initial P with seraph.

PATERPERINM xpm filum mum dim nm & apple? 10. tamus

MUS- ut 2

habeas

¢r

benechicaf ec dona. bee munergp lec fer

ficrfiaa Mhbaca Jn prumf que abi offerimu® pro ecH ma fea catholica. quam paatficare

seuffodiye. adunare. er tearre di

. TOM

:

orbe terarum. una cum famutlo tao papa”

0-H ec annfire nto -H- Nec non ¢c tear MDH: ec omaby. orchodoxif. any: crtholice

Sacramentary from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, 1128-1130 (Cambridge,

Fitzwilliam Museum, Ms. McClean 49). (Photo: Fitzwilliam Museum. C ambridge) PLATE 7. Folio 7r, T(e igitur), decorated initial.

aanobibTvegbieiaeiss aaseronse

Psalter of Queen Melisende from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, ca. 1135 (London, British Library, Ms. Egerton 1139). (Photo: By permission of the British L ibrary) PLATE 8. Folio 12v, Deésis, full-page miniature.

Ry

ee

a

4 Psalter of Queen Melisende from the scriptorium of the Holy Se pulcher, ca. 1135 (London, British Library, Ms. Egerton 1139 ). (Photo: By permission of the British Library) PLATE 9. Folio 23v, B(eatus vir), historiated initial.

e ewe t

YSPR PD PYDRVAY “PA Ae VNU STAVD AYYAL A

50) é

nad :

+

~~

.

Lang:

fulire fupphoun «caf ure iplenci ;

5,

4

ae

fima faluara merrat phenne cfecy Panui wy, “As

« p tundem xt

nvm ;

Cahl.

sem

7

$y

ae.

, ee ee

dnm

S r=

OO 74 ee

awGS, LS LBS

ee SSS 2
!

Although patriarchal authority in the Chris tian quarter did not give the patriarch rights to the patronage of all the institutions contained within its boundaries, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was certainly the most important Possession the patriarch did control. Ironically, however, it was the Prince of Jerus alem, Godefroy de Bouillon, not the patriarch, who some months later, made the first Crusader mark on this church. Following Easter 1100, the fortunes of the Crusader State of Jerusalem seemed to grow progressively more precarious: many soldiers who had remained in the Holy Land until Easter now were determined to return

home to the West.22 Godefroy de Bouillon fell ill in June

en route down the coast from a campaign in the Golan , and the Pisan fleet sailed for home shortly after the arrival of a Venetian fleet. Godefroy nonetheless desperately sought to engage the services of the Venet ians by offering them trading rights, a church, and a marke t in every city he controlled, and a third of all the towns they helped capture.33 The dependency of the ruler of Jerusalem on Italian merchant fleets was thus early established and would be enlarged significantly in the next two decades. The major blow to the Crusaders in these months fell on July 18, 1100, when, during an epidemic in Palestine that killed many, Godefroy de Bouillon himself died, possibly of typhoid. His had been a difficult task to begin the organization and consolidation of a political state in the Holy Land, centered in Jerusalem.

As the first leader of the Crusader State of Jerusa lem

his role was important, but his contribution has been mythologized and blown all out of proportion in subsequent centuries compared to what he actually did. Artistically his discernible impact was negligible, his time and efforts having to be devoted intensively to

political, economic, ecclesiastical, and military affairs of

into battle. Perhaps more important, this cession recognized the patriarch’s possession of the Christian quar-

the fledgling state. Nonetheless he would make the first Crusader imprint on the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

ter, which William of Tyre outlin ed in some detail: Distinguitur autem quarta predicta hoc modo: a porta occidentali, que dicitur David, per turrim angularem, que cognominatur Tancredi, usque ad portam septentriona lem, que

The Tomb of Godefroy de Bouillon

dicitur protomartyris Stephani, est ambitus muri exterioris,

Interius vero limes est via publica, que ab eadem porta usque

After five days of mourning following the funeral, Godefroy de Bouillon was buried in front of the Chapel of Adam. Albert of Aachen gives us the most specific location: “Post haec die quinta sepultus est in valle Golgatha Calvariae montis, in porticu templi Dominici

ad mensas numulariorum directe protenditur, et inde iterum

ad portam occidentalem. Continet autem intra se venerabilem locum dominice Passionis et resurrectionis, Domum Hospitalis, utrumque monasterium, virorum videlicet et

37

IEE

sepulchri.”35 A tomb was erected in Godefroy’s honor and the original epitaph carved on it is cited in The Work on Geography, a pilgrim’s guid e of ca. 1128-1137: Epitaphium ducis Godefridi. Francorum gentis Syon loca sacra petentis Mirificum sidus, Dux hic recubat Godefridus. Egipti terror, Arabum fuga, Persidis orror. Rex licet electus, rex noluit intitulari Nec diademari: sed sub Christo famulari.

OO

tion (Plates 3.1a and 3.1 b, Figure 1).37 j side as one enters the chapel of Adam in part of

w the Byzantine tripor ticus, the toml mate to the right pie r Projecting out fr, on A low enc

losure wall is often shown the tomb was to be ass ociated with not contained within it. In type the monument is a basic frees} andi ng rectangular tomb with a low canopy set on four corner sy ports, a monument in white marble that Tesembles what appears later in the Middle Ages as a catafalque.» The covering el ement, that is, the Canopy or baldacchino on several short round or rectan gular supporting elements, ma rks a site of special importance and sanctity, as wit h an altar.0 The ca nopy looks like temple roof with pe dimental shapes at the ends; it makes an aediculum with fastigium over the tomb. In size the tomb is descri bed by Horn as “in len gth 8 feet minus two fingers and in height 4 feet and 1 pal m; the small columns suppor ting the upper oblong slab are 1 foot and 3 palms high.”41 No figural decoration is indicated; there was only an inscription on one sid e of the roof cover and some ornamenta

jus erat cura Syon sua reddere jura, Catholiceque sequi sacra dogmat a juris et equi; Totum scisma teri circa Se, jusq ue foveri. Sic et cum superis potuit diadem a mereri. Milicie speculum, Populi vigor, anchora cleri.

Its English translation reads as follows: Here rests a Frankish pilgrim, who the place Of holy Sion sought, a wondro us star, Duke Godfroy. He became the Egyptian’s cause Of fear, the Arab’s rout, the Persian’s trap. Elected king he would not choose the name

Nor yet the crown of Kin g, but under

Christ He chose to serve. His care was to restore Once more the laws of Sion to herself. In catholic faith to follow teaching true And see that it was followed. All dissent

l

decoration around the base of the cover, on the supports, and Possib ly on the pedimental sha pes at the

Around him was destroyed , and right prevailed. He thus was crowned wit h all the saints above, The soldier’s pride, the Peo ple’s strength, the clergy’s hope.36

ends.#2 By the standa rds of 110

The earliest depictions of the tomb of Godefroy are found from the late six teenth and early sevent eenth century and variously sho w its location and config ura-

0 in western Europe, the tomb would seem to be a fundamental type kno wn from early Christian times in Italy and modest enough in its decoration.43 Given what we know of ordinary twelfth-century Crusader tombs, which generally onl y have ground-level slabs, occ asionally with incised figural or heraldic decoratio n and often with inscriptions , this monument Sives recogn ition to the i nportance of

3 ©

LAiddsrasl laahicluinesis

f

adbattrabbesssodiaben

|

re

lt

Plate 3.1a. Church of the Hol y Sepulc her, Jerusalem: to (from Horn, MS Vat mb of G Odefroy de . lat. 9233). (Photo: Bouillon Biblioteca Apostolic a Vaticana)

38

eee

2

Lit iiitiliss. i)

basic questions. We can say that the tomb design fits

the station of the deceased in the particular circumstances of Jerusalem in 1100. Nothing tremendously elaborate could have been attempted in the late summer of 1100. The design moreover is ideally suited to

the quasi-outdoor location of the tomb with the baldacchino element “protecting” the slab from the weather. With the placement of Godefroy’s tomb on the southern side of the courtyard of the Byzantine church of the Holy Sepulcher as restored by Constantine Monomachos, it was located at the entrance to the Adam chapel at the base of Calvary and near to the slab of Christ’s annointing, while only a few yards away from the Holy Sepulcher itself. There was certainly ample precedent for having the free-standing tombs of rulers associated with important burial churches. The Church of St. Denis had such tombs in the west end of the choir well before Abbot Suger began his campaign to rebuild the church. The later twelfth-century tombs of the Norman kings in Palermo, though more elaborate, are perhaps more relevant comparisons.* Certainly the most famous examples of this type of detached tomb with aediculae plus

Plate 3.1b.

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: entry

to the Adam Chapel (1992). (Photo: John Crook)

the person buried here. By contrast with the elaborately sculpted tomb of the later king Baldwin V however, this tomb monument is very plain indeed. And as Mayer has pointed out: “Die Sepulkralarchitektur der K6nige von Jerusalem lasst jedenfalls keinen Rtickschluss auf staatssymbolische Erwagungen zu.”45 Curiously, no twelfth-century pilgrim records the Presence of this tomb until Theodorich mentions it in 1168-1174. Other historians refer to it as mentioned

—

|)

1. Godefroy de Bouillon 2. Baldwin I 3. Baldwin Il 4. Fulk of Anjou 5. Baldwin III 6. Amaury I 7. Baldwin IV 8. Baldwin V

above, but Abbot Ekkehard who came to the Holy

Land in 1101 and returned to Germany in 1115 seems to be the earliest to cite specifically a stone tomb.*° The existence of the tomb can thus only be surely attested

by the tomb

texts from ca. 1115 and later. When was this

put up?

If the royal Crusader tombs were in fact damaged or even heavily destroyed by the Turks in 1244, as seems likely, the later extant images represent renovated versions, from after 1555, not the original tomb itself.” Nonetheless it is likely that the renovation reflects the Original quite closely. When was the original tomb

done, and who was responsible for putting it up: Who

€xactly was the patron and who were the artists? Unfortunately we do not have clear answers to these

Figure 1.

Location of the tombs of the Crusader kings in

the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (after de Sandoli).

fastigium placed on several rows of columns were the tombs of the Crusader kings in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. In light of these comparisons, it seems apparent that the concept of the tomb came from western Europe, probably from Italy, not from Byzantium. Given the manpower situation in Jerusalem, it was probably exe-

cuted by a European, perhaps an Italian mason. It is

more difficult to say exactly when the tomb was done, but if Godefroy did not commission it himself, there is

obvious reason to connect it with Godefroy’s brother, Baldwin, who became his successor. We propose that Godefroy was interred shortly after his death on July 18, 1100, and his tomb monument was prepared under the supervision of his brother, probably immediately, but certainly no later than the year following Baldwin I’s ascent to power, 1101, a year in which yet another Crusading expedition reached the Holy Land.*” The tomb of Godefroy may be the sole extant work that reflects his direct presence in artistic terms in Jerusalem. Ironically, he seems to have had little to do with its design. There are, however, other ways in which we can surmise Godefroy’s artistic interests during his all-too-brief reign. We are able to propose Godefroy’s active concern because of a Passage in the History of Outremer by William of Tyre. William tells the story that the electors, when considering Godefroy de Bouillon to become the ruler of Jerusalem, sought to examine the duke’s staff to discover his fitness for the position. The most serious indictment leveled against him was, ironically, Godefroy’s interest in religious images. William says: “quod ecclesiam ingressus etiam post divinorum consum-

minimally during his reign. However interested in “art” he may have been, we have nothing that can be directly ascribed to his patronage on the basis of firm evidence, not even seals or coins. The famous sword and spurs, said to have belonged to Godetroy de Bouil-

lon, which today are preserved in the Franciscan sactist

y of the Church of the Holy Sepulc her, may

indeed be medieval in date, but thei r connection to Godefroy is based only on unverified late r tradition (Plate 3.2)52

Early Coinage in the Crusader East Godefroy de Bouillon, not to mention Daimbert, Bohemond, and Baldwin of Edes sa or other prominent nobles in the Crusader States, can, of course, be expected to have used seals for his official documents,

Unfortunately no seals survive from 1099 and 1100.53

matam celebrationem inde separari non poterat , sed de

singulis imaginibus et picturis rationem exigebat a sacerdotibus et his qui horum videbantur habere aliqua m periciam, ita quod sociis suis affectis aliter in tedium verteretur et nauseam.”50 Some of the images and pictures that Godefroy could have seen in the Church of the Holy Selpulcher were the Byzantine-style icons and mosaics reported by later pilgrims such as Saewulf (1103) and Daniel the Abbot (1108).5! The only extant figural example, from the Calvary Chapel, is a mosaic of Christ, which, however Byzantine in style, appear s to belong to the Crusader campaign of decoration in the 1140s. Realizing that William of Tyre told this story with the object of demonstrating for his readers somet hing of Godefroy’s piety becoming to a ruler, we also find this informative about Godefroy’s character and his awareness of visual imagery. Otherwise this report of Godefroy’s interest in figural art is a tantalizing indica tion of something he was apparently able to act on only

Plate 3.2. Sword and spurs said to be those of Godefroy de Bouillon, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem.

(Photo: Matson Archive, courtesy of the Library of Congress)

40

Coinage despite

‘-om

this early period is, however, extant and

ather modest artistic merits and the fact that it is rom Edessa, not Jerusalem, it is of great interest to examine its characteristics as an indication of

Crusader aspect

numismatic beginnings, which is an essential he birth of Crusader art. It is Particul arly

interesting to examine the earliest issue s in comparison

to the coinage we know the Crusaders brought with

them.

In a famous passage, Raymond d’Aguilers lists the money the Crusaders carried with them on the First Crusade: “Erat haec nostra moneta: Pictavini, Cartenses,

Manses, Luccenses, Valanzani, Melgorienses et duo Pogesi pro uno istorum.”™ These are the billon deniers of Poitou, Chartres, Le Mans, Lucca, Valence, Melgueil,

and Le Puy. This coinage reflects currency the leaders of the First Crusade and their men would have commonly

used: the “pictavini” by the Poitevins, the “cartenses” by

followers of Stephen of Blois, the “manses” by Count

Robert's Normans, the “luccenses” by Pisans in the fleet,

the “valanzani” and “pogesi” by the Provencales and the “melgorienses” by the followers of Raymond of St. Gilles. What is perhaps most surprising is that, of these

coins, those of Valence (Plate 3.3) and Lucca (Plate 3.4)

are the most numerous in actual finds later in the twelfth century, suggesting they were even preferred currencies used by important commercial maritime cities for trade with the Levant, for example, Pisa and Marseilles. Of course, both currencies were associated with areas of vigorous travel to and trade with the Levant, and this fact alone could have swollen their numbers in the early years.

Crusaders from Lorraine and the Normans from

south Italy, in contrast to the others, did not bring any

familiar local currency, but Bohemond

and Tancred

brought the familiarity they had acquired with Byzantine coinage from their position on the western border

of the Empire. Thus, when

Bohemond

and Normans

from south Italy staked their claim to Antioch and went with Count Baldwin to Edessa, they resumed striking coinage that continued to reflect Byzantium and differed little from what they used at home. Edessa, the city and county that was least disrupted by the arrival of the Crusaders, is apparently the only state to have produced extant coinage immediately under its new Frankish ruler, Baldwin I of Boulogne, younger brother of Godefroy de Bouillon, by 1100. Antioch also began its coinage very early under Bohemond, but nothing is likely to date from before 1100. This means that minting was commenced by the Crusaders shortly after they settled in Edessa in 1098 and in the early 1100s in Antioch. Given that Edessa was taken by the Crusaders at the request of its Armenian inhabitants and a former Byzantine government official, it is notable that the Byzantine emperor did not maintain a claim of sovereignty here the way he did at Antioch. Thus it is perhaps all the more remarkable at first glance that the earliest Crusader coinage from Edessa is almost totally based on Byzantine sources.>7 In the early years, 1098-1100, and in fact throughout what Porteous calls the first phase up to 1119, the Edessene coins are all made of thick copper and called folles, in comparison to Byzantine coins of an early stage in the reign of Emperor Alexius. The coins are struck first on clean blanks, but then they were overstruck, a practice common in Byzantium that the Normans also followed in South Italy, and a practice frequently found with copper coins. As a result, few of the earliest coins survive. The extant coins of Porteous Baldwin Class I, which constitute the initial group, show strong Byzantine origins in type on both obverse and reverse (Plate 3.5). The obverse features a frontal

Plate 3.3. Billon denier of Valence. (Photo: Ashmolean Museum University of Oxford)

bust-length blessing Christ Pantokrator with the abbre-

viated name of Jesus Christ in Greek: “IC XC.” On the

Plate 3.4.

Billon denier of Lucca. (Photo: Ashmolean

Plate 3.5. Copper folle of Edessa: Baldwin Class I. (Photo: University of Wisconsin Press)

Museum, University of Oxford)

41

aa reverse there is an equal-armed cross on two steps,

indicative of the cross of Calvary, with balls decorating

the three ends, or bouletée.58 In one four rays emanating from its center. appear around the cross, “B A AN,” viation for the name of Baldwin. As

case the cross has Four Greek letters forming the abbrePorteous argues, a

case can be made for this to be Bald win I of Edessa, that is, Baldwin before he went to Jerus alem to become

king.® It is not necessary to dwell on these modest coins except to say that slightly later versi ons of the same type of folles were originally mist akenly identified as Byzantine in origin.©> Furtherm ore we know that the Crusaders were well acquainted with Byzantine coins because the Emperor Alexius was reported by Fulcher of Chartres to have given gold and silver coins to the nobles and copper coins to the foot soldiers, at Constantinople and at Nicaea.‘ This evidence of early coinage at Edessa enables us to see several things about the Crusader settlement that has a bearing on artistic developments considered in the larger context. The Crusaders begin with a new coinage that is nonetheless recognizable to the local (Christian) inhabitants in terms of curr ency as well as to the Normans from South Italy. A Crusader coin of Byzantine type (material and design) replaces a Byzantine coin. The iconography of the coin type is totally Byzantine and Greek inscriptions are retained (obverse) or newly employed (reverse). Ther e is almost nothing “Frankish” about the coinage except the name of the new ruler. Crusader coinage is impo rtant for settlement, particularly where minting activity had already existed; thus a new ruler sought to produce new coins as soon as feasible. Whereas the Crusaders might continue to exchange Western coins among them selves or with Italian traders, the new coinage was essen tial to establish

their presence and to interact financiall y with the local inhabitants. The strong Byzantine influence for this Baldwin Class I group suggests that Baldwin may have employed local Edessenes and/or possibly Normans from South Italy to produce the coins , a procedure resulting in minimal changes for this first issue. These coins are distinctive, not for their artis tic quality, but for their modest appearance and religious association. Not only is the image of Christ and the symb ol of the saving cross the focus of decoration, aspe cts the Crusaders could readily relate to as well as Eastern Christians

, but also the inscriptions focused on Christ and the Christian

ruler, not on territorial titles,

The Crusaders clearly needed coinage to pursue the goals of settlement they identified. Here the evidence indicates that they used the local coin types, mints, and personnel to get started. This abili ty to assimilate the local (Christian) tradition of imagery will be

———

important to assess as other Crusader artistic

v develop in the years following 1100. ¢ the r Cruel settlements, Antioch excepted, will not necesgaqeil have such a strong base of ind igenous Ch ristian poi lation nor its strong Byzant ine founda 1 in imagery. We shall continue discussing the Cy -T Coinage at Edessa and Antioch in the year s following 1100, in the chapter immediately following, but one que stion looms as peculiarly proble matic have seen. When was the firs in ]j ght of what we t coinage issued in Jerusalem and why was it so late , relatively speaki ng, in emerging? In Jerusalem the coinage we associate with the ruler during the second half of the century, includes the gold bez

ant and the silver billon deni er. Both

types of coins were minted in the first half of the twelfth century, but none is extant from the time of Godefroy de Bouillon. It is problematic why Jerusalem should be significantly

later than Edessa and Antioc h in issuing coi

nage, and the lack of evidence so far may be accidental. Certainly the jus monetae was a strictly gua rded royal prerogative

in Jerusalem, although oth er baronial coinag

e also develops as well, for example, in the County of Tripoli. On the other hand, later in the cen tury it is clear that Jerusalem was awash with many different foreign currencies.*! The variety listed by Ray mond d’Aguilers should probably be one important index. Meanwhile the Crusaders in Jerusalem started usi ng also Byzantine and Fatimid gold coins. Moreover, as we shall see, even when the early royal coins are issu ed in the Latin Kingdom, the foreign currencies contin ue to circulate. In their use of coinage, the Crusaders wer e selectively “international,” to use an anachroni stic

term, but a

truly distinctive Jerusalem coinage begins to develop under King Baldwin. The problem will be to determine

under which King Baldwin. Crusader fortunes in the wake of the death and burial of Godefroy de Bouillon did not rise irimed iately in the subsequent summer months of 1100. A new ruler for Jerusalem was urgently needed. Bohemcnd was captured in August in a battle in the norih and held Prisoner.® At that moment Daimbert and {he second

obvious candidate to succeed Godefroy, Tancre d, were

besieging Haifa, which they in fact captured about

August 20.7 Afterward Tancred went to Latiaki eh to meet the new Cardinal legate, Maurice of

Porto, who

had arrived with a Genoese fleet. Only then did Tancred return to Jerusalem and attempt to take control,

but it was too late. Meanwhile Godefroy’s household

officials, men from Lorraine closely connected to him and his family, including Arnulf, the patriarch-elect whom Daimbert had deposed, had seized Jerusalem and made their own decision. Instead of Bohemond or

Tancrec Edess
)

rights of the See of Antioch in the matter of patriarchal jurisdiction over Tyre, steadily developed the Latin church in the north far beyond the slower evolution in the Latin Kingdom, and stepped forward to lead the Antiochenes during various periods of crisis. Bernard’s successor, Ralph, had been in the Crusader East for a period before becoming patriarch, as archbishop of Mamistra. Like Bernard, Ralph was also originally French, from Domfront in Normandy, not the Rhone Valley. Unlike Bernard, Ralph did not help

alleviate the turmoil in the political affairs of Antioch. Despite his episcopal rank, which was not in question, Ralph had been uncanonically elected to be patriarch; the king, who was theoretically regent of Antioch, had not been consulted on his candidacy; and Ralph was

causing concern by negotiating with Alice over her return to power. In these circumstances, Melisende

unwisely prevailed over Fulk in August 1135 to relinquish the regency before his handpicked candidate, Raymond of Poitiers, son of William IX of Aquitaine, could arrive to take the reins of government in April 1136. In the interim Alice returned to Antioch and concocted a scheme by which her daughter, Constance, would be betrothed to a Byzantine prince, Manuel Comnenus, son of the reigning emperor. Alice seemed to see the prospect of imperial Byzantine hegemony as a way to enhance her own power and status, but mem-

bers of the Frankish aristocracy in Antioch were appalled, fearing the restoration of Byzantine control, something they had avoided since 1098. Once Ralph realized that Byzantine suzerainty could also well result in his eclipse by the reinstallation of a Greek Orthodox patriarch in Antioch, he took the side of Ray-

mond even in the face of displeasure from the south Italian Normans in Antioch and in the West.24 When Raymond

of Poitiers arrived in 1136, Ralph

successfully staged the wedding of Raymond and Con-

stance, establishing a newcomer from France as leader

of one of the most important Crusader States and forcing Alice to retire once again to Lattakieh. Ironically, despite his initial support for Raymond, Ralph gradually fell out of favor with the prince, and was even forced to answer papal charges in Rome. But the most serious threat to his patriarchal position possibly came from Constantinople in the person of the Byzantine emperor. John II Comnenus, quite unexpectedly as far as the Frankish states were concerned, marched into

Cilicia in the spring of 1137 at the head of a sizable army supported by a fleet on his southern flank. Con-

quering all Armenian castles in his path, he made his

way victoriously to Antioch by the end of August, where he camped and began to besiege the city. Raymond hastened to treat with the Emperor to avoid a

military defeat, and after seeking Fulk’s advice, agreed to swear allegiance to John as his vassal. The Emperor

agreed, with certain conditions, to recognize A ntioch as a vassal-state with Raymond as prince, essentially ag long as Raymond was willing to assist John in his campaign against their common Moslem adversary to the east, Zengi. As a sign of this arrangement, the imperial

standard was flown from the citadel of Antioch.3 The

repercussions of Byzantine hegemony over the Principality of Antioch and the Byzantine presence in the north would be felt almost immediately throu ghout the Crusader States. The Turks had put the Principality of Antioch and the counties of Edessa and Tripoli on the defensive for most of the 1130s and now

the Damascenes

took a

newly aggressive posture against the Latin Kingdom as well, especially in Galilee. Early in 1137 they also attacked Tripoli, and Pons was captured after a disastrous defeat at Mount Pilgrim, and killed. His son, Raymond II, succeeded him and, partly because of his marriage to Hodierna, became much more securely tied to Jerusalem than his father had ever been. Fulk had not been able to help Pons in his last battle, but he marched up quickly to assist Raymond II against the dangerous and powerful Zengi, who had now moved into Syria with his eyes ultimately on the capture of Damascus. Together they moved eastward, but Zengi surrounded and defeated them near the Castle of Montferrand. Raymond II was taken prisoner, and Fulk and his troops took refuge in the castle, where Zengi besieged them. The king sent an emergency summons for help to Jerusalem, Edessa, and Antioch. William, patriarch of Jerusalem, came bearing the Relic of the True Cross

with what remaining soldiers there were; Joscelin II of Edessa and Raymond I of Antioch left their ‘ocal problems and came as well — one of the few times they acted in concert. They all sensed the urgency of the circumstances, but they were too late. Before ‘hey could reach Montferrand in late July 1137, Fulk

had asked

Zengi for terms. Zengi, despite the strength of his posi-

tion, only demanded possession of the castle

which the

Crusaders had so recently captured themselves; the

king and his men with all prisoners, including Raymond II, would be free to go. It was at this moment that John II Comnenus appeared beneath the walls of Antioch.27 Fortunately for Fulk, there had only been two

raids

into the kingdom during his absence, one by the Fatimids up to Lydda, and one from Damascus over to Nablus. But the Latin Kingdom as well as the northern Crusader States were in a somewhat weakened condition, certainly not a position of strength, when the Byzantine emperor appeared. Despite what the king

D

have feared in these circumstances, however,

Jot

omnenus occupied himself exclusively with his o the northern states. ; \fter wintering in Cilicia, the emperor issued a mons to Raymond of Antioch and Joscelin of Edessa to render military service in John’s campaign to restore Antioch and northern Syria to the Empire. By the terms of the August 1137 treaty, if John reconguered Aleppo, Shayzar, Homs, and Hama, these would be given to Raymond as fiefs and the emperor would take control of Antioch. Raymond and Joscelin, recognizing their obligation to serve, dutifully marched out with the emperor in April 1138. After an unsuccessful attempt to storm Aleppo, the allies moved southwest, but when on April 28 the siege of their second objective began at Shayzar on the Orontes, an important fortified city 20 km northwest of Hama,”? neither Raymond nor Joscelin would fight,

preferring to remain in camp. After three weeks the emperor, angry and frustrated, was forced to raise his siege, and to accept tribute, gifts, and an indemnity

from the emir of Shayzar. On May 21 the allies withdrew to return to Antioch. Even at Antioch the Franks deflected imperial plans to occupy the city and John eventually decided to pull out altogether, returning first to Cilicia and then to Constantinople.” While the emperor continued his campaign in Cilicia against the Armenians and the Danishmend Turks in 1139 and 1140, Raymond of Antioch was orchestrat-

ing efforts to have Ralph, the patriarch, deposed. By November 1139 a papal legate was sent to Antioch to conduct a synod that would evaluate charges against Ralph. When the patriarch failed to appear, he was duly deposed on December 2 and the synod immediately elected a replacement, Aimery of Limoges. Ralph had staunchly upheld the rights of the Latin patriarchate of Antioch in the face of potential Byzantine challenges during his short pontificate, and he oversaw the

organized growth of the Antiochene see to its final and greatest extent, but he fell out of favor with Raymond

and this proved to be his downfall. Aimery of Limoges, by contrast, came from central France, as did Ray-

mond, and he reigned long after the prince died in 1149, becoming the best known church official in the Crusader States during the twelfth century.*! Two years later, in 1142, the emperor reassembled his

army and once again marched eastward to Syria. William of Tyre claims that “urgent messages oft

repeated, from the prince and the people of Antioch induced him to set forth. In the greatness of his might, with horses and chariots, with untold treasure and

innumerable forces, he started for the land of Anti-

och.” He led his troops first into Cilicia and then to

Turbessel (Tell Bashir), Joscelin’s new castle residence in

the county of Edessa. Surprised at the sudden appearance of the Byzantine army, the count hastened to do homage to the emperor and offered Isabella his daughter as hostage. Moving on quickly, John arrived late in

September 1142 north of Antioch at the castle of Gastun (Baghras), where he camped.* Raymond of Antioch had sent for John II Comnenus because of the increased danger from the ambitious Zengi to the east, and because King Fulk was also pre-

occupied with the same threat to the south. The emperor for his part wished to avoid the frustrations of his first campaign in Syria by securing access to Antioch and receiving Raymond’s commitment to their agreement of 1137 before setting out to engage Zengi or conduct other military operations. After consultation with the patriarch, the clergy, the nobles, and the people of Antioch, however, Raymond found himself unable to accede to the emperor’s demands. Messengers were sent to John to explain legalistically that neither Raymond nor his wife had the right to enter covenants concerning Antioch and its lands, that is, the agreement of 1137, without the assent of its citizens and lords. Neither Raymond nor his wife, moreover, had been empowered to transfer any land to the emperor.* John was understandably outraged by this rebuff, but the season was too far advanced to attack Antioch directly; accordingly, he retired into Cilicia along the coast for the winter. While in Cilicia the emperor conceived of an alternative plan to achieve his goals. He decided to send a delegation to King Fulk in Jerusalem to arrange for an imperial pilgrimage to the holy places and aid for the kingdom in the fight against the Moslems to the east. Fulk, however, clearly understood the implications of this overture: If the Byzantine Emperor were to come to Jerusalem with his mighty army, not only would the pilgrimage take place but the king would be forced to acknowledge Byzantine overlordship in return for military aid. Fulk, in effect, would have to recognize Byzantine suzerainty over the Crusader States. The king, moreover, could be forced to provide military service to the emperor, who in turn could also claim assistance from Fulk, as nominal Frankish overlord of Antioch, in subjugating the difficult and unpredictable Raymond. Wanting no part of these possibilities, the king invited John to come on pilgrimage, but with only a small escort. The emperor, seeing this strategy thwarted, decided to abandon this idea altogether and returned to Cilicia to consider other’ possibilities to regain northern Syria.* As he prepared to march out of winter camp with his army in the spring of 1143, John went boar hunting in the mountains and accidently wounded himself with a

poisoned arrow. Refusing to have his wounded hand amputated, the Emperor is reported to have said: “It would be unseemly that the Roman empire should be ruled by one hand.’”36 When his condition worsened and he saw that his end was near, John provided for the inheritance of his rule by naming his youngest son, Manuel, to be his successor, crowning him with his own hands and having him acclaimed by the army. Then in great agony, John II Comnenus died near Anavarza in April 1143. He had been an important potential ally of the Franks, and his son Manuel would become a major force in the Latin East in various ways, but John’s death and the withdrawal of the Byzantine army back to Constantinople sealed the fate of Edessa.37 Although William of Tyre says little about the activities of Fulk in the Latin Kingdom in these later years, it is clear that the king was taking the opportunity to strengthen his defenses all around the kingdom, not only on the eastern frontier, while keeping an eye on the threat of Zengi’s activities to the east. It is also evident that the advent of both Raymond of Antioch and John II Comnenus in northern Syria had freed Fulk from the necessity of constant campaigning there. What William of Tyre does say about the Latin Kingdom in this period mostly pertains to the remarkable alliance of King Fulk with the Moslems, or to new or retaken fortifications, including many new ones sponsored by the king. Zengi for the moment was biding his time, seeking to establish his base of operations and watching for an opportunity to strike. After he captured the Castle of Montferrand in 1137, Zengi had redirected his efforts to the conquest of Damascus in 1138. As selfappointed “champion of Islam against the Franks,” Zeng i saw control of Damascus as essential for his task. But after

he marched into Homs in 1138, the gover nor of Homs, the Turk Unur, took up residence in Damascus and

ferreis debita soliditate coniunctus, e: igitur subi to inmense altitudinis machina,”38 and co ntingents led b y Raymond of Tripoli and Raymond of Anti Och, the City was taken in May 1140. After the citizen deftenders were given

safe passage out, the city was Sive n to the Franks as promised.39 Following this victory, the treaty between Unur and the king was given remarkable reco gnition when Fulk

invited Unur in effect on a “sta te visit” to the royal court in Acre and other Crusader cities. Usamah ibn-

Munquidh, who accompanied Unu r on this Visit has left us a fascinating mémoire of this tour, which it is

interesting to compare with more or less contemporary

pilgrim’s accounts of the countryside.0

Crusader Fortifications to 1143 Meanwhile, fortification activities in the Latin King-

dom between 1136, when Beth Gibelin was completed,

and 1143, when the king died, were substa ntial and can be located in three major zones. In the north, besides

the conquest of Banyas, Fulk probably helped to sponsor the building of the first castle of Belvo ir ca. 1138-1140, and he took Belfort in 1139. Belvoir occup ies a commanding site high above the Jordan River overlooking the southern end of Lake Galilee and the pont

de Judaire, the main ford over the river on the road to

Damascus south of Tiberias. Although nothing of the original castle survives, and the extant fortificatio n belongs to Hospitaler construction in the late 11 60s, it is likely Fulk assisted the local lord, Ivo of Velos, to establish the first fortifications here during his program of castle construction in the late 1130s.41 As for Belfort farther to the north, this castle com-

manded the Litani valley about 30 km east of Tyre high

worked with the Damascenes against subju gation by Zengi. In these circumstances King Fulk sought to strengthen the defences of his kingdom, both personally and by encouraging others to sponsor fortif ications, and even by entering into an alliance with Unur. In 1139

Unur offered the Franks 20,000 bezan ts a month and,

above the river on the northwestern bank just north of

where it turns westward

to the sea (Plates 6.2a and 6.2b). Belfort enjoys a formidable defensive position

and in 1139 received a square keep and subst antial

outer walls on an irregularly shaped triangular plan. It

has a variety of masonry types and both early rectan-

gular and later round towers, which indicate several building campaigns. Deschamps identifies the dun-

once Damascus was safe, control of the city of Banyas,

which had been lost to the Damascenes in the early 1130s, an offer the king and his council accep ted. In the spring of 1140 Fulk led his army from Tiber ias toward Damascus. When Zengi saw the Frankish troops united with those of Unur against him, he withd rew. The combined army then marched to Banyas and laid siege to the city. Aided by a great siege engine constructed with wood brought from Damascus, “quib us per artifices et lignorum cesores sub omni celeritate leviga tis et clavis

geon and part of the existing outer wall as belonging to

the first construction phase. In any case, the basic type

of castle we can identify here, even if it unsur prisingly

employs local types of masonry, is basically entire ly Western in conception, albeit adapted to its Near East€rn context in terms of site and materials.‘2 These three castles — Belfort, Banyas, and Belvoir — formed the major bulwark of the Crusader defensive positions on the eastern frontier in the northern part of the Latin

126

DE BEAUFORT AGE SOUS LA CouR Haute

: plan (after Deschamps). CHATEAU DE BEAUFORT PE

Plate 6.2b.

TRANSVERSAL

RA

Castle of Belfort: coupe transversale (after Deschamps)

127

Mit i es |. i,

Kingdom, just as Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, and Acre con-

trolled the coast in this sector. Farther to the east and south of Jerusalem, far

above the east bank of the Dead Sea, William of Tyre reports that a major castle was built at Kerak, also known as Petra of the Desert. It was in the year 1142 that Payen le Bouteiller began the castle here and, once again, it is difficult to identify the earliest phase of this enormous fortification in the wake of later building activities, both Crusader and Moslem. The

indispensable plans of Deschamps lay out the basic phases of construction as he interpreted them (Plate 6.3a). These plans also clearly distinguish between the castle itself and the large circuit of walls given to the city; the latter are not our concern here. The main early Crusader construction is done in rather rough masonry, again of several types. Deschamps identifies the main extant work of ca. 1142 as constituting the bulk of the northern wall over the fosse facing the town, and the remains of numerous internal buildings in the upper court (Plates 6.3b and 6.3c). In plan and conception this is a spur castle with a triangular plan, somewhat

like Saone, although its construction is

much less refined and it has two artificial ditches at each end. Boase has noted that besides its somewhat

—S CHATEAU DE KERAK PLAN DES SALLES INFERIEURES ( Exar on Mas 329) Pon per F ANS

rem Bee

Plate 6.3a.

wes fe 4nt) fetes (ats ont)

Castle of Kerak: plan (after Deschamps).

rough masonry, Kerak employs a pri nitive form of

rectangular archére, similar to those found at Saone

which may be derived from Byzantin« fortifications

Given its location adjacent to a fortified town,

designed to guard one of the major north-south routes

to the east, its function was, however,

very different

Thus Kerak forms with Shaubak a significant outpost

on the southeastern frontier of the Latin Kingdom employing one of the two major castle designs we

find in these early fortifications. Finally, along the southwestern frontier of the kine-

dom, following the establishment of 1136, the king initiated two additional against further incursions from Ascalon. reports that Fulk, the other nobles of the

Beth Gibelin in castles to guard William of Tyre

realm, the patri-

arch of Jerusalem, and the other bishops agreed on the

need for a castle at Ibelin commanding the coast road to

Ramla and Lydda to control raids from the south.

Convenientes ergo unanimiter ex condicto, in prefato colle,

firmissimo opere, iactis in altum fundamentis, edificant pre-

sidium cum turribus quattuor, veteribus edificiis, quorum multa adhuc supererant vestigia, lapidum ministrantibus copiam, puteis quoque vetusti temporis, qui in ambitu urbis dirute frequentes apparebant, aquarum habundantiam tum

Plate 6.3b.

Castle of Kerak: view from the south.

Plate 6.3c. Castle of Kerak: view of Crusader fortifications at the north end.

ad

operis necessitatem, largientibus.4

tum

ad

usus

hominum

but William makes a point of noting that the defenders could see Ascalon from the tops of the towers.:

When finished in 1141, this castle was given to Balian,

known as “the Elder,” the first of a family of obscure origin who would play a significant role in affairs of the Latin Kingdom over several generations. Less survives of the fortification at Ibelin (Yavne)

than even of Beth Gibelin, but the site is prominent and the Crusaders had fought the Fatimids near here in 1105 and 1123. Benveniste interprets William of Tyre’s description, correctly in our view, to mean that this was

a castrum-type castle of the elemental type.*¢ It was probably similar to that at Gibelet, and may even have had a keep, even though William does not mention it, because this seems to be the only extant identifiable part of the castle visible today.47 Despite the lack of remains, this castle is also of

interest because of William of Tyre’s comments on the importance of having water from old wells already available, and stones from old buildings to reuse. The old French translator of William’s text gave us the classic formulation: “Chasteaus abatuz est demi refez.”48 This principle, that a castle in ruins is halfrebuilt, helped guide the Crusaders in the choice of a

number of sites, for example, at Gibelet and Saone,

and helped speed construction in these and other cases as well. Shortly after the erection of Ibelin in 1141, in the spring of the year following, the decision was made to

The main significance of Blanche Gard e, other than its purely military function, lay in its Stabi lization of the region, the same effect that Ibelin and Beth Gibelin

must have had in their areas.53 William of Tyre spell s this out in terms of settlement and increase d agricul-

tural productivity. The castle belonged to the king and William says that he gave it to: “viris prudentibus et rej

militaris habentibus experientiam, quor um nota est fides et probata devotio, servandum comm isit.”54 William of Tyre nowhere defines who these worthy men were, but in fact at Blanche Garde, they must have been his own castellans, at Ibelin, it was Balian the Elder, while at Beth Gibelin, it was, surprisingly at this early date, the Hospitalers, as we have noted above. In the future it would be more and more the Hospital ers or the Templars, to whom such responsibilitie woul s d

fall — indeed in 1150 the Templars would be given the

new castle at Gaza in this area, to continue the devel-

oping blockade of Ascalon — and by the 1160s the two military orders would become the largest landowners in the Crusader States. But by the 1140s these two orders were just becoming fully functional in the Latin Kingdom and expanding their services and possessions rapidly.

Melisende’s Patronage in and around Jerusalem before 1143

build a third castle, on a hill between Ibelin and Beth

Gibelin on the road from Ascalon to Latrun, and again the king, nobles, patriarch, and bishops sponsored the project.°? William of Tyre reports that the nobles were convinced of the efficacy of building a series of castles to blockade Ascalon, just as, as Mayer points out, Baldwin I had done in 1117 with Scandelion in blockading Tyre before its capture. Accordingly they

It is clear from the account of William of Tyre that King Fulk generated a policy of castle building, of which there are some impressive extant ren around the kingdom. William follows his ences to Fulk’s activities in the erection of fortific with a chapter on the patronage of Queen Melisende, the only such passage in his entire history.*° Following

all assembled,

restoration of the queen’s favor and good humor by

Fulk in 1135 and the start of her association with Fulk in the issuance of documents of the realm in 1136, it is teasonable to think of her initiating public activity in

vocatis artificibus simul et populo universo necessaria ministrante edificant solidis fundamentis et lapidibus quadris opidum cum turribus quattuor congrue altitudinis, unde usque in urbem hostium liber esset prospectus, hostibus predatum exire volentibus valde invisum et formidabile, nomenque ei vulgari indicunt appellatione Blanche Guarda, quod latine dicitur “Alba Specula.”51

the arts at about that time as well. William’s chapter 26

in Book 15, coming as it does at the end of Fulk’s reign,

in 1143, brackets these early years of Melisende’s prob-

able activity. This passage by William of Tyre bears serious consideration to help us identify the range and extent of her patronage and the interest she had in the arts of the Latin Kingdom. What extant works can be attributed to her sponsorship at this time? William tells us that because the kingdom had

Unfortunately only the scantiest of remains have

been discovered on this site, but once again on the

basis of William of Tyre’s description, it seems likely that the castle was of the simple castrum type with four corner towers. There is no indication in this instanc e

reached a certain tranquility, Melisende saw the oppor

that the castle, called Blanche Garde, also had a keep,

tunity to found a convent for her youngest sister.

130

Yvetta

of St. hostage

had entered the religious life in the Monastery

Anne, presumably after she had served as a between 1123 and 1125, and she remained

the ntil 1144. As the daughter of a king and as Melisende’s sister, however, she deserved to be in

charge

of her own convent.57 In 1138, Melisende acquired for this purpose the village of Bethany just east ofJetasates by exchanging the town of Tekoah near Hebron with the canons of the Holy Sepulcher who ov ved Bethany.°* There she had erected a large

convent, suitably fortified for protection, and configured to handle the pilgrims who came to visit the Tomb of Lazarus and from which the Palm Sunday proces-

sion into Jerusalem began. The convent must have been completed shortly before the death of King Fulk.® [he convent was substantially endowed, among its estates was the city of Jericho, “ut in bonis temporalibus nulli monasteriorum virorum aut mulierum inferior haberetur, immo, ut dicitur, plus aliarum qualibet

ecclesiarum habundaret.”® Melisende also presented rich gifts to the convent, “sacra utensilia ex auro, gemmis et argento ad multam quantitatem simul et oloserica ad decorem domus dei,”*! and when Yvetta was formally

installed

as the abbess of the convent,

Melisende made further presents including, “calicibus, libris et ceteris que ad ecclesiasticos respiciunt usus ornamenta, locum non cessans, quamdiu vixit, . . . gratia ampliare.”&

Unfortunately, the convent at Bethany is now in ruins; nothing of its original splendor survives, nor do we have any of the lavish gifts Melisende had made to enrich and embellish the religious ceremonies and monastic life there, and the Tomb of Lazarus is indiffer-

ently preserved without decoration. The Franciscans excavating the site between 1949 and 1953 found very fragmentary remains. The monastery buildings were only partly investigated, but S. Saller reported finding the characteristic diagonally dressed masonry and a total of sixty masons marks of the kind found elsewhere on Crusader buildings. In the meantime, the site has * een surveyed more recently by R.D. Pringle and P.E. Leach as part of their corpus of Crusader churches in the Latin Kingdom (Plate 6.4a).® The convent included two churches: to the west was the Church of St. Lazarus, reserved for the nuns of the convent; to the east was the Church of Sts. Mary and Martha for the use of pilgrims to the Tomb of Lazarus. The cloister was located on the normal south side of the western church and the conventual buildings were located east of the cloister and south of the eastern church. On the south side of the ruins a Crusader tower remains. William of Tyre in fact mentions a tower as one

of the features of the fortifications of the monastery.

Even the tower and its fortifications could not save the monastery, however, and it appears to have been destroyed by Saladin in 1187.6 This was not the first fortified convent to be built by the Crusaders in the Jerusalem region. Presumably the rebuilding of St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which was under way by 1112, had already received by ca. 1140 some of the strong high walls and towers on which Theodorich later comments (Plate 6.5). Furthermore, the church of St. Mary’s in the Valley of Jehoshaphat may have provided an important model for the convent in Bethany, that of a double church at a pilgrimage site. At St. Mary’s, the configuration was different because the Tomb of the Virgin was capacious enough to handle the pilgrims, but at Bethany the

Tomb of Lazarus was small and a separate church was needed. Thus the Church of Lazarus, the conventual church, was built over, but independent of, the pilgrimage shrine, and the church for the pilgrims, that of Sts. Mary and Martha, was built to the east. Nonetheless, the principle of a double church serving both the convent and the pilgrimage holy site was clearly established in these two cases and would be utilized again.” Various archeological finds were also reported during the excavation of the Crusader parts of the site. There are a few stone sculptures including some figural work, mostly now very broken (see Plates 6.4b and 6.4c). One fragment appears to have an angel facing outward on part of a voussoir, and others have parts of human figures, animals, or floral designs; one wonders if any of these fragments could somehow be related to the decoration of the Tomb of Lazarus.® All of the carvings are in fact very fragmentary, and it is difficult to make telling comparisons to other material. From the small extant finds, however, in contrast to the large amount of material found at Nazareth from later in the twelfth century, it seems clear that this convent received very little in the way of monumental sculptural decoration. Among the other archeological finds, Saller reports some clay lamps; various kinds of unglazed and painted pottery, cooking ware, and utensils; artifacts of glass, metal, stone, and bone; and a

very few coins. In sum, there is very little in the way of Crusader artistic remains from this site although it was apparently a large and important convent from 1143 to 1187. This seems to indicate clearly how early and how thoroughly the abbey was destroy ed by Saladin and how little monumental decoration had adorned this Benedictine foundation.” In light of William of Tyre’s text referred to earlier, this also indicates that, however little decorated the buildings may have been, the furnishings and religious vessels were apparently quite splendid by contrast, but these

Plate 6.4a.

Convent of

Bethany: plan (after RD.

Pringle and P Leach) , Lazarus;

WEST

Plate 6.4b. |

ul ba pe fd

CHURCH ~T4

Convent of Bethany: sculptural fragment (lion).

y

Bee.

2

«

53

Plate 6.4c. Convent of Bethany: sculptural

fragment (standing man witha scroll).

| 132

to 1150, based on the similarities of its facade with that of the Holy Sepulcher.”! Given Melisende’s solicitous concern for her sister Yvetta, however, we can suggest that her support of St. Anne’s was greatest while Yvetta resided there, that is, before 1144, and

Upper church

most probably before the project to build the convent at Bethany got under way in 1138. Indeed we propose that St. Anne’s was rebuilt with royal support between 1131, when Melisende was crowned queen with her husband, Fulk, and 1138.7

~||

the

Vincent and Abel have studied the building and its site in great detail and have provided us with the best analysis of its phases (Plates 6.6a-6.6g).7? Overall the church has a nave and two aisles of four bays, all of differing sizes. It is 33.75 m long and 19.29 m wide (maxi-

Agony

o}}

ws

mum, at the west facade) on the interior, dimensions of moderate size (see Plate 6.6a).74 Vincent and Abel

|| rae

remark on the irregularities of the church: Few walls are straight beyond a bay’s length and few are constructed in parallel; arches are all slightly different in size and shape, but all are slightly pointed.% Further-

S|

b .

yess Plate 6.5.

Road °

poe

20 Metres

C.N.J.

1938

Convent of St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat:

plan (after C.N. Johns).

portable objects and materials have unfortunately all vanished. Of the other ecclesiastical architectural projects in and around Jerusalem to which Melisende’s name or support could be attached — and there are many — William of Tyre unfortunately mentions none. Among these are the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Abbey

of St. Samuel, the Templum Domini, the Church of the Ascension, the Church of St. Anne, and the cathedral

Church of St. James. He only refers explicitly, of course, to Melisende’s tomb in the Monastery of Our Lady of Jehoshaphat in the stairway down to the Tomb of the Virgin Mary, later, in Book 18, chapter 33, of his history. Many of these projects, and other secular ones, are likely to have occupied Melisende after 1143, however, and so we shall discuss most of them later, in chapter 8. It is timely to refer to three of them here, however: her associ

ation with the Church of St. Anne, and her sup-

port for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Templum Domini. Melisende’s youngest sister Yvetta was resident in

the Convent of St. Anne until 1144, when she became the mother superior of the newly established Convent of St. Lazarus in Bethany. We know that St. Anne’s had significant royal endowments from the time Baldwin I placed his first wife there in 1104. It was rebuilt sometime before the mid-twelfth century, and traditionally this date has always been identified as close

Plate 6.6a. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: plea (after Vincent and Abel).

133

Plate 6.6b. facade.

Churc h of St. Anne, Jerusalem: exterior, west

Plate 6.6c. east end.

Plate 6.6d.

Church of St. Anne, Jerusale m: exterior from the

Plate 6.6e. Church of St. A nne, Jerusalem: interior, nave sculpture, Matthew, northeast apse pier

Church of St. Anne, Jerusale m: interior, nave.

corbel.

134

Plate 6.6g. Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem: interior, south aisle sculpture, pilaster capital.

sides; and especially the imbalances of the west facade. The south aisle door is “balanced” with a small window on the north aisle side, there is irregular buttressing on either side of the central door, and one sees a unique stair-tower on the southwest corner of the facade. Clearly some of these features were occasioned by the fact that this church was placed over the holy site of the birthplace of the Virgin, the house of Joachim and Anna, and their tomb, located here near the Golden Gate in the eastern wall of the city of Jerusalem.” It is also important to factor into the current configuration of the church its later history: first being transformed into a madressa by Saladin after the conquest of Jerusalem in 1187, and then, after being donated by the Ottoman sultan to the French Government in the nineteenth century, its substantial renovation and restoration.” Even though St. Anne’s is universally regarded as one of the most outstanding examples of twelfth-century Crusader ecclesiastical architecture

: interior, nave

sculpture, apse window capital.

more the church is notable because it is groin-vaulted in the western three bays with transverse arches only — no ribs

~ but in the easternmost bay, the aisles are bar-

rel-vaulted and the nave has a quasi-hemispherical dome set on pendentives in the Byzantine manner (see Plate 6.6d). The central apse, pierced with three small windows, is larger and has a 2.2 m setback from the

extant in Jerusalem and its environs, it must be seen as

something of an anomaly on the one hand, with so many irregular features, and, on the other, it must be

first bay. The smaller side apses have only one small window each. The tripartite apsidal arrangement is notable because of its polygonal exterior arrangement, which is an early Crusader configuration based on Byzantine parallels. It is a domed basilica in the Byzantine manner.”6 Vincent and Abel account for some of the irregularities as the incorporation of Byzantine masonry in the outer walls of the first two and a half

used cautiously as an example of genuine Crusader architectural features because of its extensive restorative repairs. Nonetheless, St. Anne’s is a church of great importance for our understanding of the beginning of the Bliitezeit of Crusader ecclesiastical architecture in the 1130s and 1140s. In particular, it is a church of tremendous significance as a trial ground for ideas later more fully developed at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. What are these features and how is this church related to the Holy Sepulcher? Beyond the royal patronage for the rebuilding of St. Anne’s, which it holds in common with the Holy Sepul-

bays to which the Crusaders joined their reconstruction. Moreover, most of the irregularities are of Cru-

Sader origin: the use of four cruciform piers in the eastern end, but at the west end, two rectangular piers with cruciform plans on the aisle and eastern nave arcade

ul

husband directly with St. Anne’s, there is ample eyjdence of substantial royal dealings wiih the Patriarch and the canons in regard to the support of the Holy

cher, a number of architectural features relate the two buildings. In the first place, there is the shared challenge of configuring a suitable architectural structure to a unique holy site. In the second place, there is the general idea of a domed nave combined with a tripartite apse end — a domed basilica — something relatively unusual to this point in Crusader churches, but, as noted above, not uncommon in Byzantine architecture

Sepulcher. Furthermore we should note that the work

at St. Anne’s was timely in relation to the Holy Sepulcher project, because the atelier that was assembled to

build the smaller church could later move to the Holy

Sepulcher and work there. The direct reja tionship of

in the Holy Land (see Plates 6.6a, 6.6c, 6.6d). In the third

the decoration

on the west facade, the use of the

place, St. Anne’s features the earliest extensive use of the broad, slightly pointed arches that are such a significant aspect of Crusader architecture.* Finally, there is the handling of the sculptural decoration of the west facade, which ably blends East and West at St. Anne’s as a simplified version of what became a far more complex and elaborate version at the Holy Sepulcher (see Plate 6.6b). Note particularly the use of heavy setback voussoirs and deeply splayed doors and windows as Western elements; Eastern components include the pointed arch openings, the Arab godroons, the ornamental hood moldings, and a decorative repertory similar to that found already in the church at Gibelet along with the main clerestory window flanked by colonettes. In light of these precedents set at St. Anne’s, which

domed nave crossing, and certain features of the masonry work link the two projects.*! It appears Possible that just as the Church of St. Anne was being finished in the late 1130s, the mason’s yard of the Holy Sepulcher was getting organized and preparations for work were getting under way. Just as royal support for the Holy Sepulcher can be

were then later reconsidered, elaborated, and enlarged

date, and there would be substantial later renovations

documented in the cartularies, so too Melisende’s inter-

est in the Templum Domini is evident as well.82 This interest was timely in the early 1140s because it was in 1141 that the Templum Domini was formally dedicated as a church by a visiting papal legate, an event reported by William of Tyre. The construction of a priory on the north side of the platform for the Austin canons had already commenced at an undetermined

at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, St. Anne’s has special importance as the earliest major example of Crusader church building in Jerusalem during the reign of Melisende. St. Anne’s is significant because it demonstrates the linkage of three phases of Crusader development: the first, the taking over of Byzantine

to the Templum Domini in the form of mosaic inscriptions probably done later in the 1140s, and of handsome marble sculptures from the period ca. 1180. We shall discuss both of these sorts of renovations later, in chapters 8 and 10, respectively. Among the major Crusader commissions

architectural features; the second, the initiation of sim-

that can, however, probably be

associated with the Templum Domini at this point in

plified “Romanesque” masonry and especially decoration that seems strikingly Western without Eastern influence, presumably to be explained as the execution of purely Western artisans working on the interior; and the third, the rapid integration of Eastern and Western features that may derive from a workshop of masons from mixed backgrounds, Eastern and Western, as may have worked on the west facade. St. Anne’s is also significant because we see the construction of the church in distinct workshop phases, in particular, the austere decorative vocabulary of the interior (see Plates 6.6e-6.6g) that reflects the simplicity of eleventh-century—-early twelfth-century Romanesque carving in Europe, as contrasted with the richer repertory on the west facade, which is handled differently and done ina different style. It is indeed worthy of note that St. Anne’s was rebuilt just at the time that the great project to reconfigure the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was presumably getting under way. Whereas we have little in the way of explicit documentation to relate Melisende and her

the early 1140s is the great ironwork screen or grille that surrounded the rock under the dome on the interior of the building (Plates 6.7a—6.7c).*4 As a work of ferronnerie it is wholly French Romanesque ir: its design and execution, but there is nothing extant in the West

to match it in size and splendor from the twelfth century.® There is no specific evidence that Me!isende had

anything to do with the screen, but in light of her generous patronage at St. Lazarus at Bethany as cescribed by William of Tyre, and her documented encowments here at the Templum Domini, she must be considered

as a possible sponsor. The grille is of special interest for two other reasons as well. It is the earliest Crusader work mentioned in the Templum Domini by any of the pilgrim accounts.

An anonymous Icelandic account that can be dated to ca. 1150 explicitly says: “In the middle of the temple stands a rock... ; an iron grating is placed around the

rock.” Furthermore, the grille is unusually splendid, as befits its very special function and location. Not only is it richly decorative in terms of the ringed and sp!-

136

Plate 6.7a. Templum Domini: grille in situ. (Photo: Savignac, Ecole Biblique)

s "EES

raled patterns that make up the panels in the distinctive parts of its eight-sided design in plan, but the iron elements that constitute the grille are themselves enriched with a textured surface. Together the design and the texturing would indeed have created a splendid spectacle when illuminated by candles set on the fleurs-de-lys spikes of the vertical uprights, beneath the mosaics of the dome above, and the marbles of the floor below, as T.S.R. Boase has pointed out.*”

S))

Plate 6.7b.

¢ ~

=

»y

Sfp

¥

Templum Domini: grille, detail, sections taken

out of storage (1975).

The Psalter of Queen Melisende from Jerusalem The most famous work with which Melisende’s name is associated was begun in this period and completed before the death of her husband, Fulk. It is the Psalter of Queen Melisende (Plates 6.8a-6.11; Color Plates 8-13) now preserved in the British Library with its exquisite ivory covers (see Plates 6.10a and 6.10b; Color Plates 11 and 12) and silk embroidered binding on the spine (see Plate 6.11 and Color Plate 13) as

Egerton

Ms. 1139.88 William of Tyre specifically refers to

Melisende as a patroness of books in regard to the convent at Bethany where her sister became abbess. The Melisende Psalter was not done for a particular estab-

lishment, but rather for the personal use of a laywoman of noble rank. If it is any indication of the quality of the

books she had done for the abbey at Bethany, they must have been outstanding. Analysis of the manuscript can provide evidence for associating it with Melisende and for the circumstances in which it was done.

21.6 x 14 cm, Egerton Ms. 1139 is a relatively small,

d use personal-sized psalter, the type of book one woul

i

ne

a.

=

Plate 6.7c.

Templum Domini: grille, detail, section (1975).

for private prayer, reading, and meditation. It is a codex de grand luxe with twenty-four full-page New Testament illuminations to begin the book, followed by a calendar with twelve zodiac-sign medallions, eight full-page initials on gold ground with the incipits also in gold for the liturgical divisions of the psalms, and the complete text of the psalter decorated with gold initials. Finally, there are nine portraits of the saints in headpiece panels for the prayers at the end of the manuscript, not to mention

the treasure binding made of

WM crema SS, |a

P Melisendes New. lestament ae

Pe ee eee

Photo: iy

Plate 6.8b.

Psalter of Queen Me lisende: New TeTestament miniature, fol. 1v, the Visitation. (Photo: By permission of the

eaance of

the British Library)

re En

British Library)

ba]

» Plate 6.8c. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 2r, the Nativity. (Photo: By permission of the British Library)

L ,—

~

\ :

4

oe

:

—q

at

Plate 6.8d. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testa miniature, fol. 2v, Adoration of the Magi. (Photo: PY permission of the British Library)

138

Sota

if Ss

Plate 6.8e.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

miniature, fol. 3r, Presentation in the Temple. (Photo: By permission of the British Library)

Plate 6.8g.

Plate 6.8f.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New

Testament

sion miniature, fol. 3v, Baptism of Christ. (Photo: By permis of the British Library)

Plate 6.8h.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

sion of miniature, fol. 4v, Transfiguration. (Photo: By permis ) Library the British

(Photo: By miniature, fol. 4r, Temptation of Christ. permission of the British Library)

139

Plate 6.8i. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 5r, Raising of Lazarus. (Photo: By permission

Plate 6.8). Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 5v, Entry into Jerusalem. (Photo: By

of the British Library)

permission of the British Library)

Plate 6.8k.

Plate 6.81. Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament miniature, fol. 6v, Washing of the Feet. (Photo: By permission of the British Library)

——————— —

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

miniature, fol. 6r, Last Supper. (Photo: By permission of the British Library)

140

Plate 6.8m.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

miniature, fol. 7r, Agony in the Garden. (Photo: By permission of the British Library)

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

Plate 6.8n.

miniature, fol. 7v, Betrayal of Judas. (Photo: By permission of the British Library)

“a

yy PA

iE

Plate 6.80.

Plate 6.8p. miniature,

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

the miniature, fol. 8r, Crucifixion. (Photo: By permission of

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament fol. 8v, Descent from the Cross. (Photo: By

permission of the British Library)

British Library)

141

Plate 6.8q.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

Plate 6.8r.

Psalter of Queen Melisende:

New

Testament

miniature, fol. 9r, Lamentation. (Photo: By permission of the

miniature, fol. 9v, Harrowing of Hell. (Photo: By permission

British Library)

of the British Library)

Plate 6.8t.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

miniature, fol. 10r, the Holy Women at the Sepulcher. (Photo:

Plate 6.8s.

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament

miniature,

fol.

By permission of the British Library)

permission of the British Library) 142

10v,

Doubting

Thomas.

(Photo:

By

Psalter of Queen Melisende: New Testament Plate 6.8u. miniature, fol. 11r, the Ascension. (Photo: By permission of

the British Library)

qui deberry oi. pyuarie wings hiv”

@ vcrbunr cau angle Te am drone cirnend fuicipe usta pia fupplietbus TUS. IE gH MeN ca gee Ice Plate 6.12d.

Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy

Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., Ms. lat. 12056): fol. 187r, initial D(eus

*

etal, a

ne

Geer

Sues

~~

-

Plate 6.12e. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., Ms. lat. 12056): fol. 199% initial D(eus . . .) with St. John the Baptist. (Photo: Paris, Bibl.

-

Nationale)

MS qs aple tuopecs.

Plate 6.12f. Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., Ms. lat. 12056): fol. 165v, initial D(eus . . .) with St. Peter. (Photo: Paris, Bibl. Nationale)

160

SANC MH MAri¢

unciiil ~

ino.

PERTHESVM) Plate 6.12g.

Missal

from

Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., Ms.

the scriptorium

lat.

12056):

of the Holy

171r,

fol

initial

T(e igitur . . .). (Photo: Paris, Bibl. Nationale)

Plate 6.12h.

ANT

)

iN

A

from

the scriptorium of the Holy fol. 222r, initial

12056): Ms. lat. 120

S(upplicationem

Flamulis

Nationale)

GLTLATQ}

Missal

Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., and

(Photo:

Paris,

Bibl

.

.N

Plate 6.12i.

Missal

»f the Holy

fr

Q(uem laudant

) with

70v,

}

Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., }

to:

initial

Paris, Bibl

Plate 6.12). cher (Paris,

Missal from the scriptorium of the Holy SepulB.N., Ms. lat. 12056): fol. 214v, initial V(encranda

with Deathof the Virgin. Plate 6.12k. Sepulcher

Dieu Paris, BibL

Missal (Paris,

from

B.N.,

with the Holy Nationak

161

Ms.

the lat.

Women

(Photo:

scriptorium 12

056

at the

fol.

Paris, Bibl.

of the

Holy

12lv,

initial

Sepulcher.

(Photo

Nationale)

The illuminator of the Missal . . . is the ; ‘© versatile ang adaptable artist [compared to the mast: the sac en. tary]. But his acquaintance with Byzantin. style ram is ver much secondhand; his figures betray th nselves at ft

tur)” (see Plates 5.19a-5.19d, 6.12a-6.12c, 6.12g),!79 the

missal has a much more extensive program of figural initials, some of which are based quite dependently on the Melisende Psalter (see Plates 6.12d-6.12f and Color

glance as western copies. His decorative wx k, on the other

Plate 15). Moreover, the sacramentary is different in terms of the repertory of ornamental decoration for its initials, drawn very directly from South Italian with some English sources, and it is different in terms of the figure style, which is closer to its Byzantine model. Buchthal contrasted their ornamental initials as simpler, more repetitive, with more stock motifs for the

hand, stands in a class by itself. The combination of English and Italian ornamental styles, first attempted by the master of the initials in Queen Melisende’s Psalter.

is here carried to

a stage of interpenetration which appears artificial and

laboured. It achieves a synthesis of the two contradictory

elements which is absent in the Psalter: but splendid and

impressive as it is, it has nothing of the Psalter’s taste and distinction: it is a derivative art which lacks the appeal of its more aristocratic relative.156

sacramentary, in contrast to those of the missal, which

are more richly illuminated. On the basis of this comparison he proposed to place the missal a few years later than the sacramentary, but put both codices after the Melisende Psalter.!° Because the artists are indeed different stylistically; the sacramentary shows none of the direct impact of the Melisende Psalter so clearly

The calendar of this missal is clearly one made for use in an Augustinian house in Jerusalem, as Wormald has argued.!97 Otherwise, the most distinctive aspects of the

codex besides its high quality, are, first, the fact that the

evident in the missal; the sacramentary’s calendar

scribe seems to have been an Armenian who knew Latin,

includes a unique entry in the original hand for the death of the Patriarch Warmund, who died in 1128;131 and the script of the sacramentary is very close paleographically to that of a southern French codex, with a colophon dating it to 1129,1% it was suggested in chap-

judging from the style of the script of the text and the numbering of the gatherings in Armenian characters, both done by the same hand.138 Second, the figural decorations clearly seem very closely related to the Psalter of Melisende and yet show some interesting Western attempts to incorporate Byzantine imagery with distinctly non-Byzantine results.1% It is clear, as Buchthal has

ter 5, however, that the sacramentary may date slightly

before the psalter. In light of Boase’s suggestion that it should date before the death of Warmund’s successor as patriarch, Stephen, in 1130,133 it probably cannot be

pointed out, that the initials of the Virgin and Child, St. John the Baptist, and St. Peter are closely affiliated, if reduced, versions of larger images in the Melisende

that much earlier, because the sacramentary is so

closely related to the missal: Compare the one figural initial in the sacramentary, the kneeling angel, to that of the missal (see Plates 5.19f and 6.12i)!34; also, the repertory of ornament in the sacramentary and the psalter is drawn from a common source. Thus the sacramentary likely dates to ca. 1130 and the psalter to ca. 1135 — both for the reasons presented above — and the missal, as indicated below, shortly after 1135. This other manuscript that belongs to the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher is a large and splendid missal now in the Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris, Ms. lat. 12056 (see Plates 6.12a-6.12k and Color Plates 14 and 15).135 Originally decorated with two full-page miniatures of the Maestas Domini and the Crucifixion — now lost as is also the case with the sacramentary — the missal still retains four large, thirty-five medium-sized, and many small initials decorated with figural or nonfigural designs, the former containing images of Christ and the saints or animals, and the latter having either geometric or foliate motifs. Buchthal has analyzed the missal with great sensitivity and he is surely correct to discern that the artist worked with close knowledge of the sacramentary and the Melisende Psalter in mind, but was distinct from

Psalter (see Plates 6.12d-6.12f). Moreover, this artist has

also included two Byzantinizing feast cycie scenes that depart dramatically from the examples painted by Basil in the psalter: the women at the tomb for !'aster, and the Koimesis for the Assumption on August

1 (see Plates

6.12) and 6.12k). In both cases the initials «» the missal have condensed

their models and introc

ced large-

headed, doll-like figures, compared to their more svelte predecessors in the psalter, but iconogr#;>ically the

results are uneven. The image of the women

a‘ the tomb

is more faithful to the Byzantine tradition than Basil, but the Koimesis bends the Virgin at an impossilc 90-degree angle to accommodate her to the confines of the initial,

and the rigid symmetrical composition has lost any real sense of the Byzantine original. In the missal, therefore, we see another interesting

example of work achieved in this scriptorium by e team of scribe and artist with unusual qualifications:

the scribe who is bilingual in Armenian and Latin, the artist who is mature, imaginative, sophisticated, yet derivative, probably with an Anglo-Italian back-

ground. Buchthal dated this codex 1143-1149, but

closer to 1149 on the basis that its calendar, like that of

any painter who worked on either of those codice s. Buchthal asserts that,

the psalter does not refer to the dedication of the Holy Sepulcher, and some of its decoration seems to derive

162

.

salter. If we agree with the relationship he from des but we move the psalter closer to 1135 and the s entary to the early 1130s, as proposed above, we; probably see this codex as appearing shortly there , that is, ca. 1135-1140. In line with the appearance of the Armenian gathering numbers and the rustinian calendar, it is even tempting to consider the possibility that Melisende commissioned this

comparing the earliest images on the columns, the Virgin and Child Glykophilousa enthroned from the south aisle dated 1130 (see Plates 5.14a-5.14g), and the St. Bra-

but this is only speculation. The impressiveness of this manuscript, however, does nothing to diminish the

sius on the other side of the same column (see Plate 5.15), with the majority of the paintings, we find that these works and two others are significantly different in some aspects, a discovery suggesting that they, all four, may be quite early. Besides the 1130 Virgin and Child on the fifth column of the south aisle facing west, and St. Brasius, facing east, there is also the figure of Elijah on the eighth column of the south side of the nave facing

plausibility of this possibility.

north (Plates 6.13a-6.13c), and the Virgin and Child

codex

as a gift for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher,

Galaktotrophousa on the ninth column of the north side of the nave facing south (Plates 6.14a and 6.14b).!42

Crusader Monumental Painting In contrast to book illumination, there is very little extant monumental painting that can be assigned to the Crusader States in the 1130s to 1143, and nothing

that can be associated with the patronage of Queen Melisende. Certain column paintings inside the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem are the main candidates for attribution to the 1130s, although their extremely damaged condition makes attempts at evaluation on stylistic grounds risky at best. Nonetheless a few interesting possibilities exist. One of the striking characteristics of the column paintings at Bethlehem is that the distribution of the figures is so random in location, even though some of the figures appearing there can be very loosely grouped according to iconographic types or even linked stylistically (see Figure 2, Chapter 5).141 The randomness of their locations

Whereas most of the column paintings feature standing figures, three of these four represent seated figures. Whereas most feature solely blue backgrounds, two of these have landscape settings, the Virgin Galaktotrophousa is too damaged to see anything specifically, and only Brasius has the standard blue ground found on most later examples. Whereas most of the column paintings are framed as individual images, the Glykophilousa of 1130 and St. Brasius share vertical red border elements, a format never again repeated in Bethlehem. Whereas the average size of the twenty-nine extant paintings on the columns is 176 x 75 cm, these four early examples demonstrate significant variations, with the Glykophilousa at 194 x 90 cm, St. Brasius at 196 x 91 cm, Elijah at 171 x 94 cm, and the Galaktotrophousa at 167 x 73 cm.'43 Finally, whereas most of the column paintings exhibit bilingual inscriptions in Greek and Latin, indicating their clientele to be both Greek Ortho-

dox and Latin Catholic, two of these four have inscriptions in Latin only; the image of Elijah has a bilingual inscription in Greek and Latin, and the Galaktotrophousa has no extant inscription. The cave setting has already been discussed in chapter 5 for the Virgin and Child, dated 1130. Elijah fed by

and the variations in style seem to suggest inescapably that these works were painted as devotional images over

the course of many years following 1130. example, there are pairings of Sts. Cosmas and Sts. Olaf and Knute, and the grouping six Eastern ascetics on adjacent columns there

Whereas, for and Damian, of five out of of the nave,

the ravens in the wilderness (I Kings 17:1-6) is the other

are also single or paired columns with two paint-

painting with an explicit landscape background (see Plates 6.13b and 6.13c). The iconography of this scene is rare in medieval Western or Byzantine monumental art until the thirteenth century, but the source must have been illustrated Books of Kings, as Weitzmann has argued.'#4 Whatever its immediate source, the landscape here is decidedly abstract in the rendering of its form and color: red mountains with yellow and blue vegetation, all with simplified linear outlines and articulation. The figure of Elijah is also quite abstract, seated compactly and pensively with his right hand to his rather large head, while blue and orange drapery swirls over his torso or drops pointedly from his right knee in strap-folds. This style is singular here among the Bethlehem column paintings and reminiscent of Romanesque

ings of unrelated figures, and other categories of figures are scattered about and intermingled in what seems to be a haphazard overall arrangement. Neither the liturgical feast days of the figures, nor the idea of a classical Byzantine church program appears to have produced an

understandable order to these holy images. Instead the

unusual array of saints and holy figures appears to have

come about as the result of individual patronage, probably by visiting pilgrims, within a loosely organized scheme. This is evident not only in terms of which saints are included — some very unusual — and where they appear, but also those holy figures who do not appear — some very surprising omissions. Careful study of the paintings yields a number of distinctions in format, style, and artistic result. In fact,

163

(Above left) Plate 6.13b.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem:

column painting — Elijah, detail, left, with plants in landscape. (Photo: British Mandate /Israel Antiquities Authority) (Above

right)

Plate

6.13c.

Church

of

the

Nativity,

Bethlehem: column painting — Elijah, detail, right, with birds in landscape. (Photo: British Mandate /Israel Antiquities Authority)

Plate 6.13a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — Elijah, overall view. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

painting and sculpture in the West. We do not have to

look to Europe, however, for close parallels are avail-

able nearby. In the Melisende Psalter, the painter of the saints in the headpieces for the prayers at the end of the volume also utilizes a similar strap-fold style for his draperies. This is found on the torso of the standing figure of St. Nicholas, and on the leg draperies of several other standing figures. Although there is no question of the same artist’s hand being found at Bethlehem, the artistic convention shows a kindred approach to the

(Above left) Plate 6.14a.

Church of the Nativity Bethlehem:

column painting - Virgin and Child Galaktotrophous: view. (Photo: British Mandate /Israel Antiquities

a, overall

A uthority)

(Above right) Plate 6.14b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting - Virgin and Chile Galaktotrophousa, detail, Virgin nursing Jesus. (Photo: British

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

164

col Ther: and arti Byzaiit:ne ma\ |

n and rendering of draped human form. \oreover, a proximity of the two artists in time n. In the case of the Melisende Psalter this een identified as a Westerner working in the mode for a Crusader patron, and the same id for this Bethlehem artist of Elijah. 5 the only Old Testament figure to appear on

the Be hem columns, and his presence must be due to his importance both as a precursor of Jesus and as a mode! for those Christian ascetics who were active in the Early Christian monastic movement in Palestine and

Egypt. The appearance of another image of the Virgin and Child enthroned was obviously relevant to the basic dedication of this church to the Nativity of Christ. The emphasis in the 1130 Glykophilousa on the close relationship of mother and son is carried through in even more striking fashion with the Virgin prepared to nurse Jesus in the Galaktotrophousa (see Plate 6.14b). In this case the Virgin sits upright on a bench throne while inclining her head and baring her left breast to the infant Jesus. Jesus is identified by his crossed nimbus, and his head is visible adjacent to her breast, but

just how he is held against his mother is impossible to see because of damage to the painting. Overall the composition closely resembles the Virgin and Child Glykophilousa in the south aisle, and there are some striking stylistic parallels as well. The treatment of the face and the maphorion is similar to the extent we can see the details of each. The proportions of the Virgin figures are comparably somewhat abstract with striking elongation in the legs of the Glykophilousa and the torso of the Galaktotrophousa. The draperies share a similar linear articulation, but the closest parallel is found in the long narrow lower element of the Virgin's maphorion. It drops down the left side and then loops back up over the forward leg and ends with displayed hem ‘olds between her two legs. This same handling is founc in a less pronounced version with the Virgin and enthroned in the Melisende Psalter, where a Chil clear distinction is made between the maphorion more sleeve of her tunic, which provides the elonand gated drapery over the leg. One other parallel that be noted between the Bethlehem Glykophilousa show!) and the Galaktotrophousa is the ornamentation on the

wooden throne; the idea of a paired floriated design set off by horizontal bands is shared by both. The stylistic characteristics strongly suggest a date in the mid-1130s for Elijah and the Galaktotrophousa, and the variations in format suggest no overall plan for a program had yet evolved at this point. It is moreover significant that these paintings correspond with the period at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem contemporary with and immediately following the corona-

tion of King Fulk and Queen Melisende. It was at this

point that the coronation ceremonies were moved to the

Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, thus chang-

ing the function of the Church of the Nativity from that

of a state church more exclusively to that of a pilgrimage church. It is in these circumstances — just before and just after — that votive images make their first appearances in Bethlehem on the nave columns, and indeed “portraits” of pilgrims sometimes even accompany some of these images, as we saw in connection with the Glykophilousa. Thus begins the development of a unique set of column paintings that will later be integrated into a large and important program of mosaics in this church during the third quarter of the twelfth century. But the nature of these column paintings as devotional icons for pilgrims is established at the very beginning and maintained as long as they were painted. Besides the column paintings in the Church of the Nativity, there is also a small chapel at the base of the campanile on the northwest corner of the church, entered today from the west side entrance to the cloister. The main decoration of this chapel consists of fresco paintings of which a representation of the Deésis on the east wall is the central image (Plates 6.15a and 6.15b). The paintings in this chapel were heavily restored in 1950 and must be studied with great caution. Nonetheless, we can see some interesting aspects of artistic developments at Bethlehem by examining their iconography, using photos of the frescoes prior to the restoration.'*° It is clear from the prerestoration photographs looked at in conjunction with the restored paintings that the artist employed another version of the strapfold style seen on the nave column of Elijah inside the church. The Deésis illustrates this point best. With this slender evidence we can therefore at least propose that this chapel was executed also in the mid- to late 1130s. Other than the Deésis, we can also recognize images of the Virgin and Child enthroned, the Etimasia, St. Stephen, St. Peter - conspicuously absent from the column paintings inside the church — and several other standing male saints as yet unidentified (Plates 6.15c-6.15f). This chapel clearly must have had a program rather different from the paintings — or the later mosaics — inside the church. Indeed the individual iconographic characteristics of virtually all of the corresponding figures are different when compared. The importance of the chapel frescoes lies in the evidence of vigorous painting activity in Bethlehem at this time for which some kind of atelier must have been organized. We may reasonably speculate that it was the initial nucleus of the artistic équipe from which artists were available to paint devotional images on the columns, and which may have later worked on other projects in the 1140s and 1150s in churches and shrines nearby. No other extant manuscripts or frescoes are known

em

&,

Plate 6.15a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — Deésis before restoration.

Plate 6.15b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — Deésis after restoration.

that can be dated in the 1130s or that can be associated with Melisende’s name at this time,!47 but we may expect that she was a major patron, based on her specific activities in connection with the Abbey of St. Lazarus. And as we have already seen from William of Tyre’s reference to her patronage, Melisende was interested in a wide range of art and architecture. It is therefore important to consider what other types of projects can be asso-

media, and metalwork was an important aspect as well. We have already seen how goldsmiths’ work was of central importance before Melisende and Fulk ascended the throne. What evidence is there for the continuation of this significant work after 1131?

The Barletta and Kaisheim Reliquaries of the True Cross

ciated with her name at this time, that is, in the 1130s, or

stimulated by work done on projects she sponsored.

As we have noted above, William of Tyre’s reference

Following the production of the reliquary of the True Cross that was sent to Denkendorf ca. 1130, two additional extant reliquaries were apparently made between 1131 and 1143. Although the great Jerusalem relic of the True Cross was only recorded as being carried in the service of the king on one occasion during the reign of Fulk, 1131-1143, namely, in 1137, when Patriarch William took the relic north on the expedition to liberate the king from being besieged in the Castie of Montferrand at the entrance to the Orontes valley about 24 km

to Melisende’s patronage at Bethany ranges into other

Plate 6.15c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — Virgin and Child after restoration.

Plate 6.15d.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis

Chapel paintings — Etimasia after restoration.

166

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — St. Stephen after restoration.

Plate 6.15f. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Deésis Chapel paintings — St. Peter after restoration.

northeast of Crac des Chevaliers,'48 Fulk himself was only recorded as being involved with such relics one other time. At some point during his reign he sent to Angers relics of the True Cross for which it is said the Chapter of St. Laud themselves had a reliquary made. There are no details to explain why Fulk was so much less active with the relic in Jerusalem or why he bypassed the opportunity to have a reliquary made in Jerusalem to send to Angers.

Among the reliquaries of the True Cross to survive from the Middle Ages, the example in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Barletta is among the most famous. The presence of a major relic from the Latin Kingdom in Apulia should not be surprising because of the close ties enjoyed between this region of south Italy and the Latin Kingdom throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Not only did the Holy Sepulcher and the Hospitalers possess major holdings in Apulia during the time of the Crusader States but Barletta and other cities such as Bari and Brindisi were major ports for travel to and from the Holy Land at this time, not to mention the fact that they were also places of refuge during the sauve qui peut following the fall of Acre in 1291. This church in Barletta was granted privileges by the pope in 1138, when canons of the Holy Sepulcher can be found there, and then in 1144 the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Barletta was given to the canons of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the Cistercian monastery of St. Martin at Kaisheim was founded in 1134.'>! The three reliquaries are different sizes, but the proportions are similar. The Denkendorf Cross reliquary now in Stuttgart is 23 cm high, 11.1 cm wide on the longer cross-arm, and 1.3 cm deep; the Barletta is 28.8 cm high, 14.8 cm wide, and 2.33 cm deep; the Kaisheim is 20.5 cm high, 10.6 cm wide, and 1.4 cm deep.’ The

Plate 6.15e.

As we have seen, a center for goldsmiths to work near

the Holy Sepulcher and the hospital in Jerusalem developed already by the third decade of the twelfth century.

Furthermore, by 1133 goldsmiths, “aurifabri,” were witnessing documents at the Holy Sepulcher, and we noted

additional names in 1135. We have also found that the patriarch, the canons of the Holy Sepulcher, and the king from time to time gave away particles of the True Cross, and although sometimes sent as a gift apparently without accompanying reliquary, they were frequently in a suitable vessel. This vessel was typically a cross in the symbolic double-armed shape of the relic it contained. The Denkendorf Cross, discussed in chapter 5, is our earliest extant example (Plates 5.17a and 5.17b).1©

The reliquary of the True Cross in Barletta in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (Plates 6.16a and 6.16b) is one of two other works closely related to the Denkendorf reliquary. The other is now in the Stadtische

Denkendorf and Barletta crosses are double-armed,

Kunstsammlungen, Augsburg, a reliquary that origi-

whereas the Augsburg cross is single-armed, yet despite these differences in size and shape, we should

nally belonged to the Cistercian cloister of St. Martin at Kaisheim (Plates 6.17a and 6.17b).

167

Plate 6.17. Plate 6.16. (b) back.

Reliquary of the True Cross, in Augsburg from

Kaisheim: (a) front; (b) back.

Reliquary of the True Cross, Barletta: (a) front;

6.16b). This consists of two basic elements. At the

note that the three crosses share similar proportions in the height to cross-arm length to width of vertical shaft: the Denkendorf, 23.0 x 11.1 x 2.3 cm; the Barletta, 28.8 x 14.8 x 2.33 cm; the Kaisheim, 20.5 x 10.6 x 1.4 cm; that

ends of the longer cross-arm and the center and top of the vertical shaft are medallions — a large medallion at the center and smaller ones elsewhere. At the top and ends are comparable images of the symbols of the

evangelists: John’s eagle (top), Luke’s ox (left), and Mark’s lion (right). The angel of Matthew found on the Denkendorf Cross is missing on ‘he Barletta

is, a ratio of roughly 2.0:1.0:0.2. More important, they share the same basic decorative motifs and are mostly made of the same materials. Consideration of the last points is crucial to understanding their place of origin. Like the Denkendorf Cross, the front of the vessel in Barletta has a narrow double-armed slit opening framed by filigree in which splinters of the cross were

Cross, where only a flat plate was used {0 the repair noted above. The central medallion is »:< isely the

same size, and the agnus dei is found i»

exactly the

Same pose on the two crosses. The m:.i*!lions are

linked by passages of a vine-scroll moti“! single flowers surrounded by the vine cm

set into a wooden armature (see Plate 6.16a). At the six

ends of the slit opening are quatrefoils of filigree with small stones of the Holy Sepulcher mounted in their circular centers.1%3 It appears that the bottom end of the cross has been repaired, possibly as the result of later damage, with a floriated cross-shaped design in filigree, pearls, and a large translucent stone at the center. Pearls rather than polished round semiprecious red, green, and lilac stones are set in pairs around the quatrefoils and along the slit Opening at regular interva ls. Between the stones are heraldically opposed S-curv ed filigree designs, instead of the blind circular filigree mounts.’ The entire facade of the cross is framed with a single border comparable to that of the slit opening, instead of the double borders on the Denkendorf Cross.

= motif of ihe Denk-

endorf Cross is transformed into a series

flower designs that are repeated in unt».

of five-

stamped

along the vertical shaft and cross-arms. Unlike the Denkendorf Cross, the Be:

! .

We \\) YF\

-

(Opposite

above left): Plate 7.9a.

Church of

the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusaiem: sculpture for the figural and vine-scr oll lintels: left

Savignac,

(Opposite

Sepulcher,

right (east)

(west) portal with the figural lintel in Place. (Photo: Ecole Bibl ique)

above right): Plate 7.9b.

Church of

the Holy jerusalem: sculpture for the vine-scroll lintel, portal with the vine-scroll lintel in place. (Photo:

Savignac, Ecole Biblique) (Opposite below): Plate 7.9c.

Church

of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel — detail, left side, befo re conservation. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Miie

a

KOS

mae

:

Plate 7.9d.

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel, scene 1 — detail, Christ raising Lazar us, after conservation.

Plate 7.9e. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem:

figural lintel, scene 2 ~ detail, Mary and Martha, after conservation.

+

Plate 7.9 Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerus alem: figural lintel, scene 2 ~ Christ on the Globe, after conservati on.

‘,

Plate 7.9g. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel, scene 3-— detail, Christ sending forth an apostle, after conservation. 221

(Left): Plate 7.9h.

Holy

Sepulcher,

Church of the Jerusalem

: figural lintel, scene 4 — detail, restor ed scene

of the Fetching of the She-Ass, after con servation,

(Right): Plate 7.93.

Church of

the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: figural lintel, sce ne 5 — detail, Crowds at the Entry to Jer

usalem, after conservat ion.

Plate 7.9}.

Church of the Holy

Sepulcher, Jerusalem: lintel, scene 6 — det ail, Last Supper, after conservation.

figural

Plate 7.9k. Church of the Holy Sepulc her, Jerusalem: vine-scroll lintel — lef t Side, before conservat ion. (Photo: British Mandate /Israe] Ant iquities Authority)

222

ol

Plate 7.91. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vine-scroll lintel — central part,

before conservation. (Photo: Britis h

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Plate 7.9m.

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vine-s croll

lintel — right side, before conservation. (Photo : British Mandate /Israel

Antiquities Authority)

Plate 7.9n. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: vine-scr oll lintel — detail, centaur, after conservation.

223

DT

(Left): Plate 7.90

Church of the

E Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem:

vine-scroll lintel — detail, nude ~ male figure, after conservation.

(Right): Plate 7.9p. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem:

vine- scroll lintel — detail, vi ne scrolls, after conservation.

Plate 7.9q. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusa lem: vine-scroll lintel — detail, predatory bird, after

conservation.

Plate 7.9r. Church of the Holy Sepulcher , Jerusalem: vine-scroll lintel — Fati mid sculpture on the reverse of the vine-scrol l lintel. (Photo: British Mandate /Israel Antiqu ities Aut hority)

224

symbolism,

as seen, for example, in the Golden Gate of

voussoirs and an abstract floral-and-vine motif with grapes carved on the tympanum, a eucharistic symbol in low relief - comparable to the tympanum at one entrance to the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem — reminding us of Byzantine plaques (see Plate 7.10d).® It is a fascinating, but apparently independent, par-

the city, thar to relatively remote Western counterparts at Toulouse and Santiago, or even in Sicily.>° Certainly the broad pointed arches and prominent godroons were stimulated by Arab sources (see Plates 7.8a—7.81).©0

Not so

obvious is the upper cornice, which appears to

be partl:

used Roman architectural sculpture and

allel that the west facade of Saint Denis, dedicated June

which was also copied by Crusader masons for the

9, 1140, also included on its west facade a tympanum decorated with mosaics.” Saint Denis is unlikely to have played any direct role here but is an interesting counterpart, whose mosaics were combined with an early Gothic architectural scheme including a threeportal facade dominated by figural sculpture. In the case of St. Denis, the idea for such facade decoration was likely to have been in Italy, where mosaics are

molding ‘nat separates the first and second stories.® The exquisite rosette design of the hood frieze molding over the arches of the lower story has a different ances-

try, deriving from Early Christian Syria and seen in monuments still standing at Bara and Qalaat Seman.& Parallels with decorative sculpture on the Golden Gate

have also especially been pointed out, and it has recently been claimed that this hood frieze may be

found on facades in various configurations, as on St. Peter’s in Rome, San Frediano in Lucca, and other

reused material, from the seventh century.® The floral frieze on the abaci above and extending outward from the capitals on the ground level may be a Crusader imi-

examples farther south.7! For the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, once again it is important to consider the possibility of a local Jerusalem example along with possible Byzantine or Italian inspiration; consider, for example, the gates of Bab al-Silsila and Bab al-Sakina to the Haram from the Street of the Chain, as a source of inspiration. The eleventh-century Moslem traveler, Nasir-I-Khusrau, who also recorded the Holy Sepulcher mosaics, referred to this great entrance to the Haram as being elaborately decorated with mosaics. Although these were surely not figural mosaics, the precedent for mosaic decoration on a monumental double portal to a major holy place clearly existed in

tation of the rosette-frieze idea. Four types of capitals have been identified on the facade: the most distinctive, with the windswept design of their foliate decoration, appear on the lower doors and upper windows. They remind us of sculpture from San Marco, Venice, but here no doubt come

from local Byzantine sources. The hood molding of the windows on the upper story shares with the exterior decoration of the Franks’ Chapel on the east side of the facade a similar approach to the carving, however

different the specific choices of components. Large stylized floral motifs, deeply undercut and silhouetted on the hood molding, stand in contrast to emphatically three-dimensional ropy vine-scroll and animal, or foli-

Jerusalem.” If the idea of mosaics on the facade of the Holy Sepulcher may have been drawn from local,

indeed even Moslem models, the program of figural scenes would have been chosen by the Crusader patrons themselves in consideration of what was appropriate to express the significance of this holiest of holy places. On the facade the one figural image — no longer extant — that may have been done in mosaic and is specifically mentioned by various Christian pilgrims is that of the risen Christ appearing to Mary Magdalene near his sepulcher.”? This image of the resurrected Lord was an obvious and important choice, uniquely suited for this church, even if it was iconographically unprecedented elsewhere. This event and its site had been closely associated with the localization of the center of the world inside the church, where the Crusaders constructed the crossing and its dome. By focusing on this image for the facade, the Crusaders announced the significance of this church as being devoted to the Resurrection, as well as to the Holy Sepulcher and to the Crucifixion on Calvary. The imagery that does survive from the facade is

ate and paired-bird forms on the Franks’ Chapel, all of

which create shade. In this ern training, possibly even

a striking effect of pattern in light and case the sculptor appears to reflect Westperhaps from Provence or Languedoc, Toulouse.

These are the main extant decorative components for the facade, as seen today. As seen in 1149, however,

it displayed other elements as well. Both portals must have hac doors, presumably decorated with sculpture — in wood

or, as Theodorich reported, in bronze — like

those at the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem or the Church of St. Catherine, Mt. Sinai, or even those at St. Denis or in many Italian examples.*” Unfortunately

nothing is extant of the original doors, which must have been destroyed in the fire of 1808. Both portals now have large empty tympana and unadorned lintels. Written sources tell us the tympana were decorated with mosaics, although the exact imagery remains in

doubt (see Plate 7.10e).6° By contrast, the entrance to Calvary through the Franks’ Chapel has mosaics on the

225

an attractive analytic approach, which is the current point of departure for the interpretation of the individual scenes and their overall program.” The scenes left to right can be identified as follows:7

found in two large sculptured lintels that decorated the double doors, the one to the west (left) comprised of six

figural scenes of the life of Christ, the eastern one (right) dominated by a vine-scroll motif with humans and predatory birds enmeshed in its spirals (see Plates

1 The raising of Lazarus under a triple-arched and domed structure (John 11:39ff.).8° 2 Jesus and his disciples meet Mary Magdalene and Martha. (John 11:20ff., 32ff.).81 (Scenes | and 2 are linked and divided by a city

7.9a and 7.9b).74 These lintels were taken down in 1929

for conservation treatment in 1930 and for safekeeping were placed in the Rockefeller Museum, where they

may be seen on display today. The lintels are problematic because they were obviously done by different sculptors, and they appear to be added to the portals; that is, they are on separate panels that were set into the architectural configuration and were not executed as an integral part of the structural lintels. Furthermore, one of them at least, the vine-scroll lintel, was carved on a plaque reused from Fatimid decoration on

gate.) 3a In the lower part of a two-tiered representation, two men, the disciples Peter and John (?), prepare the

Paschal Lamb under a seven-lobed arch (Luke

22:7—13).& 3b In the upper part of the two-tiered representation,

the reverse side (see Plate 7.9r).% There is still no con-

two men under a double arch, Jesus at left and a disciple at right, watch as a third man, another dis-

sensus on when the lintels were completed. If they were, in effect, added to the portals, this must have occurred at a late stage in the execution of the facade; thus, we may expect the lintels were not completed by the time of the dedication in 1149 and were finished sometime later.” Alan Borg made a major contribution to the study of the Holy Sepulcher when he demonstrated that the figural lintel over the western door is related in its configuration and basic ideas to Italian, indeed Tuscan, examples. Coming at a time when the identification of Italian sculptors in Crusader Jerusalem was still something of a novel idea, his argument proposed to see significant Italian contributions to the main decoration of this most important holy site. This is a bold idea, which corroborates what we know about the involvement of Italians on earlier aspects of the Holy Sepulcher project. Given the problems of stylistic analysis caused by the conservation treatment of both lintels with a substance giving a muddy latexlike character to their surfaces, it has been difficult, however, to find a consensus on the formal origins of their artists in a specific European or Mediterranean region. Borg seems to be correct in relating the stylistic links of the figural lintel artist to Tuscany. More useful discussion has been centered on the iconographic interpretation of this lintel.”

ciple, leaves through a doorway to make arrangements for the coming events: the Entry to Jerusalem and the Last Supper (Matthew 21:1-6, 26:17-19;

Mark 11:14, 14:12-16; Luke 19:28-32, 22:7ff.).83 Two disciples bring the ass and the colt from Bethphage (Matthew 21:6-7; Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35).84

Jesus and his disciples enter into Jerusalem with the Mount of Olives behind them, unifying scenes 4 and 5. The entry scene, now heavily damaged, stretches two scenes wide (Matthew 21:8-11; Mark 11:8-11; Luke: 19:36ff.; John 12:12ff.).85

The Last Supper takes place with Jesus placed in the center of the long side of a rectangular table with disciples on each side, under a triple-arched and domed architectural structure. Judas is represented on the near side of the table; Jesus and the other disciples face the onlooker from the far side (Matthew 26:20-29; Mark 14:17-25; Luke 22:14-38; John 13:1ff.).°6

The essential fact in the representation of these scenes seems to be that the order of events and the iconography reflect the topography and sequence of the sites a pilgrim would have visited in the mid—twelfth century in and around Jerusalem, a sequence that the liturgical procession of Palm Sunday would have also followed to open Holy Week (scenes 1—5).8’ These sites were controlled by Austin canons, as Lindner has fur-

In regard to the figural lintel (see Plates 7.9a, 7.9c-7.9}),

attempts have been made to read the scenes in accord with various narrative paradigms. The difficulties presented by the order of the scenes, some of which are not

ther observed, linking this iconography with their presence in the Holy Sepulcher. The pilgrims record their Visits in accounts we have already referred to and will continue to cite in regard to the later twelfth century, in particular, Theodorich (1168-1174), John of Wurzburg

in chronological sequence; the curious selection of scenes,

even though all events precede those commemorated inside the church; and the problematic iconography, not to mention damage to the relief, which has resulted in contested identification of some scenes, have generated a variety of hypothetical explanations. A recent article offers

(ca. 1170), and John Phocas (ca. 1185), among others.**

The scenes begin in Bethany, at the Tomb of Lazarus, where a pilgrim would start to follow these events. The

226

second scene represents the place, specifically undeter-

sentation of all of creation, the world redeemed by the

mined, but on the way to Bethany, where Jesus met

sacrifice of Christ. She also points to related examples that appear in the sculptural decoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher along with the figural lintel, in particular, over the entry to the Calvary Chapel. Although her interpretation deemphasizes the parallelism that Rahmani attempted to argue between the two lintels, the programmatic content she proposes constitutes a highly symbolic conclusion to the more topographically driven western lintel, a culmination which she argues also

Mary and Martha. What follows as the pilgrim walks

from Bethany

toward Jerusalem, is the site where

arrangements were made for the ass and colt in Bethphage; the next scenes on the lintel refer to this. A

painted stele to mark the place was in the process of being prepar »d at the time the lintel was being carved in the mid-twelfth century. Walking down the Mount of Olives toward the Golden Gate, Jesus entered Jerusalem, the next and largest scene on the lintel. Finally, the pilgrim would visit the site of the Last Supper on Mt. Sion, the most important holy place associ-

relates directly to the Crusader Calvary Chapel behind

this door. This gives the eastern lintel a strong motif for which the now lost tympanum decoration, quite plausibly an image relating to the Crucifixion itself, possibly in mosaic, would have been the focus.! As with the figural lintel, the introduction of Italian stylistic and iconographic connections shifts the emphasis of interpretation again from an all-French- or Anglo-French-generated origin to one more directly related to the Mediterranean context of the Latin Kingdom. The differences between the lintels — one primarily figural, the other dominated by a vine-scroll motif — heighten the already conspicuous contrast between the two doors as they are seen today. Only the western door is open to enter; the eastern door is walled up and apparently has been so since medieval times.*2 However, if, as we suppose, the two tympana were splendidly decorated with figural mosaics pertaining to the holy sites, including the Crucifixion, as suggested earlier, the doors would have been originally much more unified in appearance. Moreover, their imagery in specifics as well as in overall program should be understood as distinctively attuned to this unique holy site. Whereas their artistic roots seem to derive most reasonably from Italy, both in iconography and style, we should not fail to recognize the important creative contributions made here to give this church portal a program uniquely tailored to its significance as Christendom’s most holy site.% It is useful to reflect on the origins, nature, and development of the architectural and sculptural work that constituted the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1149. Not only is it the most significant artistic remnant of the Latin Kingdom in Jerusalem in situ, it remains today, as it was then, the most important Christian holy site in the world. What can we say about the architectural and artistic concepts that formed the bases of the

ated with the great Church of St. Mary, Mt. Sion. All of these events, it should be remarked, were the immediate predecessors of the passion, death, and resurrection

of Christ, the holy sites identified and celebrated inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher with images in mosaic to carry the narrative along. Besides the topographical interpretation of these scenes as a liturgical “pilgrimage” narrative leading up

to the site of the Holy Sepulcher by way of the Palm Sunday procession and the beginning of the events of Holy Week as celebrated in Jerusalem at midcentury,

we may also consider them as celebratory, if anticipatory, events. The raising of Lazarus is a resurrection miracle; the preparatory arrangements lead to the adventus of the Lord and the great banquet of the first Eucharist. The final and most important celebration is to take place inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where each pilgrim could pray at the sites where Jesus triumphed over death on the cross and, resurrected from the dead, won salvation for all humankind. It is, however, a major challenge to understand how the vine-scroll lintel forms part of this program. In examining the vine-scroll lintel (see Plates 7.9k-7.9r), Bianca Kiihnel in effect followed Borg’s lead

by investigating the possibility of Italian ties, with fruitful results.*? In a long article she has argued that the vine-scroll lintels of certain churches in the Abbruzzi share the most direct formal, functional, and iconographical relationships with that on the Holy Sepulcher.

It is especially with the specific churches of Sts. Rufino and Cesidio, Trasacco, and the Church of the Carmine in

Celano (with a relocated portal from the Church of San Salvatore in Paterno) that she identifies the Holy Sepul-

cher lintel as having comparable vine-scroll motifs. In order to do this, she also has had to redate these Italian sculptures into the mid-twelfth century, in particular, to the start of the third quarter of the century.” Programmatically Bianca Ktihnel argues the case for

project, about the artists who worked on the project,

about the program of decoration they carried out, and about the impact of events on the progress of the project, including, of course, the Second Crusade? How can we date the various phases of the project, and what was the significance of the dedication of the church on July 15, 1149?

the motif of the Arbor Vitae as the major focus in these instances with a hieratically arranged symbolic repre-

227

It appears that certain basic features of the plan and elevation of the new church - apse with ambulatory and three radiating chapels, two-storied double-bayed choir with ribbed vaults, and crossing with ribbed vaulted transepts — were adapted from the pilgrimageroad-type Romanesque examples found in France and Spain. The churches of St Sernin, Toulouse, and Santiago da Compostella come to mind immediately, but Sainte-Foi at Conques, with its three radiating chapels, and other pilgrimage churches seem relevant as well.”4 The decision(s) that would have yielded this design would have been made early in the process of the project, perhaps by the early 1130s, but well after virtually all of the major Western examples had been finished. To patrons with Western origins like the patriarchs William and Fulcher and King Fulk this plan no doubt seemed programmatically recognizable and appropriate for such a holy site devoted to pilgrimage, and it offered the requisite flexibility to cope with the demands of the existing shrines that had to be incorporated. Following this decision, which indicates strong ties with Western architectural ideals at the outset, the

execution of the various components provided the opportunity for features that reflected eastern patronage in the person of Queen Melisende and the Levantine context of the building and made the church, as a result, increasingly and distinctively Crusader, in its blend of Western and Near Eastern elements.® We have already mentioned the use of broad pointed arches and the introduction of the dome on a high drum over the crossing. The arches were features of the Near Eastern visual world that were also newly in vogue in western Europe, especially in Burgundy and

the mosaics for the Great Mosque in Damascus in the early eighth century. Abbot Suger also proudly men-

tioned how he called artists “de diversis partibus” to work on Saint Denis.” The facade of the Holy Sepulcher

is, for the Crusaders, the epitome of such an approach on a much grander scale, bringing together masons, architects, mosaicists, painters, and sculptors from East

and West who worked in traditional styles drawn from Roman, Early Christian, Byzantine, Armenian, and Islamic sources, as well as more or less contemporary Romanesque modes.” It is striking, moreover, that the

hand of no sculptor whose work is found on the south facade can be discovered elsewhere on or in the Church

of the Holy Sepulcher. This suggests that the workshop of the church reached a very large size in its latest Stages and that it will be worth looking elsewhere in the city for evidence of their work prior to and following the completion of the Holy Sepulcher project. The bringing together of such a large workshop also suggests that time was of the essence in the last phase. We may additionally observe that the reason there were so many sculptors working side by side relatively independently of each other probably reflected the usual conditions of the Crusader context: relatively short intensive phases of work executed by polyglot artists assembled for the completion of major projects sponsored by a Crusader patron or patrons. These artists — master builders, masons, sculptors, mosaicists, painters, be they Franks, Christian Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, French, Italians,

possibly even some Moslems - created a visual expression of the cosmopolitan ambiente that characterized the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem at one of its most flourish-

the Ile de France, as well as the Latin Kingdom (and

thus would have been doubly acceptable to Crusader patrons of French or northern European origin and/or ancestry). The shift in the core plan from a pilgrimage church type with a crossing tower to one with a dome on a high drum had a profound effect on the nature of the church; a truncated pilgrimage road church without a nave was tranformed into a quasi-centrally planned church in which the crossing functioned as the naos of a Byzantine-type, strongly vertical church under a high dome. This style and handling of the spatial interior would have been particularly congenial to the taste of royal patrons such as Queen Melisende and her son, King Baldwin III, judging from other Crusader work being done in the 1140s. However this transformation happened — whatever the mixture of accident and independent design — the result was to change the Western-planned church into something distinctly more Eastern, in terms of the more centralized and vertical interior space with its prominent dome.

ing periods in the twelfth century. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was dedicated on July 15, 1149, the day commemorating the conquest of Jerusalem by the First Crusade. Surprisingly, as we have noted above, neither William of Tyre nor

the

chroniclers of the Second Crusade mention the dedication of the Holy Sepulcher and no leader of the Cru-

sade remained in Jerusalem for the event. We know of this observance rather from a commemorative ins¢ ‘ip-

tion painted in gold that was set up in the Chape! of

Golgotha below Calvary and that was recorded by

later pilgrims. Theodorich partially quoted it in 1172, omitting the last few lines: Est locus iste sacer, sacratus sanguine Christi, Per nostrum sacrare sacro nichil addimus isti.

Sed domus huic sacro circum superedificata Est quinta decima Quintilis luce sacrata Cum reliquis patribus a Fulcherio patriarcha.!©

228

e

Reflecting on these developments, we may recall that Caliph Walid I was said to have brought workmen from Persia, India, Western Africa, and Byzantium to execute

Francesco &

esmius read a longer, though fragmen-

marked the place where the Crusaders first entered the city on July 15, 1099.1% It was a celebration and com-

tary version «« the early seventeenth century that was later studiec j interpreted by de Vogiié in 1860.11

Despite ce! the origina! transcribed 25

memoration specifically for Jerusalem, but what made

roblems in determining to which year ription referred, it has recently been 1ollows:

Est lox

sacer sacratus sanguine Christi.

Per nosis:im

sacrare sacro nihil addimus isti,

the commemoration

sed domus huic sacro circum superaedificata est quint« decima quintilis luce sacrata cum religuis Patribus a Fulcherico Patriarcha cuius tune

ing the events of 1112 and 1114 in the absence of later

written evidence. The archeological and art historical evidence of the building, however, suggests that the project was spread over a number of years, and there were several phases. In essence, these stages can be summarized

quartus patriarchatus erat annus,

septem sept ties

special on July 15, 1149, was the

fact that it was the fiftieth anniversary of the taking of the city and the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Finally, in the past the major attempts to date the Crusader project have emphasized the documents surround-

et semel unus ab urbe erant,

similis pur o auro fulgebat, , Domini numerabantur simul anni

as follows: In the period to ca. 1120, the Crusaders

Y

focused on the refurbishing of the Holy Sepulcher’s aedicule itself, on the establishment of the tombs of the

It appears significant that this inscription was

Crusader kings at the foot of Calvary (see Figure 1), on the repair of the chapel of St. Helena (see Plate 7.3aa), and on the building of the canons’ cloister (see Figure 5, right side). It may have been at this time that the general idea of enclosing the holy sites associated with the Holy Sepulcher within a single architectural complex emerged. Patriarch Arnulf was substantially involved in these projects and if the large general idea arose at this point, he certainly may have had something to do with it. After a hiatus of about ten years, when no significant activity seems to be identifiable on the site, the project to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in a new format is initiated, possibly by Patriarch William after the coronation of 1131. The specific choice of plan,

located in Golgotha at a place sanctified by the blood of

Christ because that was also the chapel adjacent to the tombs of the Crusader kings in a section of the church

newly rebuilt by the Crusaders. The place of the dedi-

cation was therefore linked to those rulers who safeguarded the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The inscription also cites prominently the name of the consecrating patriarch, indicating his substantial involvement in the overall project. Finally, it is clear from the wording that, far from only being associated with just one altar in the Golgotha chapel, this inscription refers to the whole church.!0 The dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by the First Crusade was clearly a significant event in the history of the church itself, symbolically marking its “completion” and linking a supremely triumphant moment in the Crusade movement, this church in the Latin Kingdom, and the rulers of the Latin Kingdom to this holy place sanctified by the blood of Christ.!4 The dedication ceremony was,

preparations to build, and the initial demolitions and

construction may have gotten under way later in the 1130s. The main construction and decorative campaigns seem, however, to date in the 1140s, with a

major change in plan in January 1146 after the church was struck by lightning. The dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by the Patriarch Fulcher then took place, presumably in the presence of King Bald-

however, p: imarily an ecclesiastical one, as the inscription records. Furthermore, it was part of an annual

win III and Queen Melisende, on July 15, 1149.1°7 The

carved lintels of the south transept facade and the campanile were finished sometime after this date. This work and other work inside the church are likely to have been finished by the late 1150s before the remaining workshop members at the Holy Sepulcher completely dispersed to projects elsewhere in Jerusalem or in other parts of the Latin Kingdom."

observance ‘hat had begun sometime before 1140. Possibly starting during the reign of Fulk and continuing

during the veign of Baldwin III, presumably by the same patriarchs who were responsible for the rebuild-

ing of the church itself, William I and Fulcher, and

probably developing out of the festival observance on

July 15, a ritual had developed to commemorate the

conquest of the holy city in 1099.10 The ceremony began at the Holy Sepulcher and included stational vis-

The Program of Mosaic Decoration

its and services at the Templum Domini, at the cemetery of fallen First Crusaders outside the Golden Gate —

At the time that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher

Specially opened for this occasion — and at the cross on the north wall of the city, east of Herod’s Gate, which

was dedicated, it appears that a program of monumen-

229

tal painting, mostly mosaic decoration, but also including frescoes and floor mosaics, was part of the ensem-

ble planned and substantially completed by mid-1149. Certainly the major later pilgrims of the 1170s and 1180s refer to many of the figural mosaics at some length. Besides the inscriptions we know existed in the church, painted in gold - the Genoese and dedicatory inscriptions — there is evidence of mosaic decoration that must have been planned and executed by 1149 or very shortly thereafter.! Byzantine mosaics existed in the rotunda, as reported by Nasir-I-Khusrau, which we have mentioned earlier.110

Of these, the most important was the image of the Anastasis from the apse of the restored rotunda of 1042-1048. This mosaic was apparently transferred by the Crusaders to their main apse farther east when the Byzantine apse was taken down to give direct access between the rotunda and the crossing of the Crusader church. The mosaic no longer exists, but it is likely that a minia-

ture in the Melisende Psalter (see Plate 6.8r) reflects its

basic configuration and some of its special iconography."? The aedicule is reported to have had mosaic decoration and the Calvary Chapel complex extensive mosaics, which are described by later pilgrims."'3 Of this latter ensemble, only one small fragment survives, a handsome figure of the ascending Christ, in the vault of what is now the Franciscan Chapel, the southern half of the Calvary Chapel.4 Finally, on the exterior, there were Mosaics, most now lost, on the main double portals, as mentioned above, but some extant nonfigural mosaic work is found on the voussoirs of the Franks’ chapel at the entrance to Calvary."15 Some of these mosaics and paintings were completed at the time of the dedication on July 15, 1149. Certainly the Byzantine mosaics extant in the rotunda from the 1040s that remained in situ were available. The Anastasis mosaic that was taken down when the Byzantine apse was destroyed is a more problematic example; although this mosaic is now gone, there is some evidence to suggest that it had been relocated in the Crusader apse and was completed in place by the time of the dedication. Alan Borg has noted that the patriarch of Jerusalem,

Adam and Eve, between the time of his dea: and his

resurrection.!!8§ The mosaic of the Anastasis in the

eleventh-century church had been emblematic of the

significance of the rotunda as sheltering the unique

holy site of Christ’s sepulcher at the time of this momentous event. The Crusader tranferral of this

mosaic to the main eastern apse of their chevet

enhanced the importance of this Byzantine image as the title icon of their new church. Borg suggests that

Fulcher changed the traditional Latin patriarchal seal

type to that of the Anastasis as a reflection of the events

of July 15, 1149.19

This idea is an attractive one that would be more

convincing if in fact we could date the earliest seal of Fulcher and if in fact this earliest example of the new type possessed all of the distinctive iconographical components that distinguish the mosaic as reflected in both the pilgrims’ descriptions and the miniature in the

Psalter of Queen Melisende.!2° The mosaic is descri bed by John of Wiirzburg (ca. 1170), Theodorich (ca. 1174), and Quaresmius (1639), and they corporately menti on, among other things, these features, as Borg has discussed: the Anastasis image with an inscription placed above the head of Christ, the figure of Christ stridi ng

from left to right, and two angels in the sky bearing standards (tabellae) with the words, “holy, holy, holy,” in Greek on each one.!2! These aspects allow Borg to observe that this specific iconography is unlike “any other representation of the scene.’122 If we assume that this unique Anastasis iconography was indeed characteristic of the mosaic in the Holy

Sepulcher apse, we can draw some impor tant conclu-

sions. Borg is correct to see the patriarchal seals of

Fulcher, his successor Amaury (see Plate 7.10a) and later followers to 1261, as well as the minia ture in the Melisende Psalter, as reflecting the monumental i: nage

in the apse. Although the seals, unlike the psalter painting, do not have the important flanking angels

Fulcher, changed the design on the reverse of his lead

seal from the image of the Holy Sepulcher, that is, the tomb itself, which had been standard on some earlier patriarchal seals, to that of the Anastasis. 116 Mayer further points out that Fulcher’s seal is the first by a Latin patriarch to include a Greek inscriptio n.” The Anastasis image was the Byzantine Easter iconography of Christ trampling on Hades and the gates of hell while saving the worthies of the Old Test ament, especially

or Patrorohs f-nIn

Plate 7.10a.

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jeru

salem: mosaics and paintings — seal of the Patriarch Amaury (after Paoli).

230

‘ards, this can probably be explained : : : because of the r tiny size, with a diameter ranging from

Anastasis in'agery from earlier Orthodox patriarchs,

The basic problem of determining what was there in 1149 is difficult, given the loss of all but one small figural fragment in situ. We have several pilgrims’ accounts on which to base our evaluation for the Crusader twelfth century. The most important are those of

types that had been studiously avoided until this

Abbot Daniel (ca. 1106-1108), John of Wiirzburg (ca.

with the stan:

97 to 39 mm

nly, and their models. Furthermore,

Byzantine sea!

m odels probably existed in the form of

1170), Theoderich (1168-1174), and Johannes Phocas

oint.!23

Even though

1146, the year that Fulcher was conse-

(1185). There also exist several later accounts, of which that of Quaresmius in 1639 with descriptions of

crated patriarch, cannot be ruled out as a possibility, the dedication tor the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in

mosaics and citations of many extant inscriptions is the most important. Quaresmius must be used with caution, however, because of the necessity of verifying the authenticity of what he reports with respect to the Crusader program of decoration in the face of possible changes and restorations between 1187 and the early seventeenth century.!% In 1149 the rotunda retained its eleventh-century Byzantine program except for the apse, which had been taken down (see Plate 7.3a). In the upper part of the domed rotunda there were twenty-seven figures. On the north side was Constantine with the twelve

1149 would seem to be a reasonable and sufficiently

important oc asion for the introduction of such an impressive new seal design. Finally, the presence of a

Byzantine image with a Greek inscription on the seal strongly suggests that the Orthodox presence in the Holy Sepulcher, which was tolerated from the time of

King Baldwin I, had gained significant new status by the 1140s, supported no doubt by Queen Melisende, herself the daughter of an Orthodox mother. Seen in the light of this imagery, the Melisende Psalter Anastasis (see Plate 6.8r) takes on new impor-

tance. Far from suggesting that this famous codex should be dated as late as ca. 1149 — the reasons for dating it in the mid-1130s have already been presented in chapter 6 — the psalter picture is an indication that the

apostles above him; on the south, Helena with twelve

prophets above her; and on the west was St. Michael the archangel. All of these figures looked to the east, where the image of the Anastasis had been located in the Byzantine apse of the rotunda. What was left of the Byzantine apsidal ensemble on the east side of the rotunda included the following images: a beardless

Crusaders, in fact, moved the Byzantine mosaic from the rotunda apse to their apse. Around 1135, when it is prob-

able that Basil painted the introductory miniatures in the psalter, the Byzantine apse in the 1048 rotunda-church was very likely still standing. Whatever the date of the seal type of Fulcher — the dedication in July 1149 or the date of his consecration as patriarch in January of 1146 by this time the Byzantine apse would have been taken down, the new Crusader apse put up, and the mosaic relocated in its new place over the high altar. Thus it is likely that Fulcher deliberately chose the newly reset mosaic of the Anastasis in the eastern apse as the insignia of his official acts.!24 Consequently his seals, a

Christ Emmanuel, to the left, and, to the right, the Vir-

gin and Archangel Gabriel of the Annunciation, along with an image of the Ascension of Christ into heaven in the vault of the arch. Below the dome of the rotunda stood the aedicule,

renovated in 1119 and decorated with its own program of mosaics sometime later. Almost all twelfth-century pilgrims exclaim that the Holy Sepulcher aedicule was beautifully decorated, but no one mentions mosaics until John of Wiirzburg and, especially, Theodorich refer to them ca. 1170. We may reasonably assume therefore that the mosaics on the aedicule itself were not part of the 1119 renovation but instead were the product of the campaign to decorate the interior of the new Crusader church initiated in the 1140s.!77 John of Wiirzburg mentioned the existence of mosaics, but he describes none and only quotes several inscriptions, all from the interior of the tomb monument. Above the lintel of the entry directly into the chamber of the Sepulcher he saw these words:

very conservative medium compared to manuscript illu-

mination, reflect the same combination of East and West that we see in Melisende’s Psalter nearly fifteen years before. In this case we find Byzantine iconography and a Greek inscription on the reverse reflecting a specific Crusader site, with Latin text and content on the obverse. Unfortunately, we are not so well informed about

the other mosaics on the interior of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1149; we are forced to rely mainly on

pilgrims’ accounts filled with descriptions of variable

accuracy and many inscriptions. We are told that the

This place bears witness, “Christ is risen!” The guard an angel sent from Heaven, And graveclothes — they bear witness too That Christ is our Redeemer true.!?8

interior of the Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulcher gleamed with mosaics, and questions inevitably arise

as to the nature of their iconography and program.

231

Inside, near the actual Sepulcher, he also records three other inscriptions: Inside, first we read:

Nonetheless, it appears that these verses belon g to the

Crusader campaign as well. Theodorich writes. “around

the lower arches there are verses inscribed in each arch, ... we were able, generally speaking, to understand six in three arches:

By dearest friends it’s mourned, and from the Cross

Is lifted down this Flesh, to God most dear. For pitiful and poor their rightful King Did not refuse this suffering to bear.

1

Then, inside near the Sepulcher: Our Christ is now with spices sweet Within the grave enchained. But righteous men will go to heaven By aid of merit gained. All Hell shall groan in fear. The death of Adam has been changed Now that our Christ is here.

Finally, also inside, but centered over the Sepulcher were these verses: While thus, within a tomb of rock The buried Christ doth hide, The burial of a man takes place But heaven is opened wide.!2

Theodorich, by contrast, provides a fuller report, which conspicuously includes, among other things, some of the inscriptions. For example, he says that over the entry to the Lord’s Sepulcher from the Chapel of the Angel, there was a mosaic picture, the Lord is placed in the Sepulc her, which was lent by these people. Our Lady his Mothe r stands there, and the Three Marys, well-known from the Gospel , with their

phials of ointment, and Presiding over them the angel himself. He has rolled the stone from the Sepulc her and says, “Behold the place where they laid him.” Betwe en the roof and the sepulcher itself there is a long semici rcular line of writing that contains these verses:

This place bore witness, “Christ is Risen,” And guard, an angel sent from Heaven, And grave-clothes. We bear witness too The Christ is our Redeemer true.10

He came unto this place so low That he created long ago. And thou, who now my Tomb shall see, Thyself shall mine own Temple be! O how joyful that we This the heavenly Lamb see, As the Fathers agree. He at Ephrata bloomed, To his Cross he was doomed. In the rock he’s entombed. Taking Adam to the stars, With the Devil he spars And from trickery debars. Causes Satan to fear, Makes his power disappear, And announces, “I’m here!”122

In regard to the pictorial material of the interior, as

Bulst has discussed, what Theodorich

saw was no

doubt two scenes in mosaic: one, the Entombment, and the other, the Three Marys at the Tomb.133 They were

more likely set into the wall of the chapel, but conceiv-

ably they could have been mosaic icons hung over the entrance to the Sepulcher. This is an interesting pair because the Entombment, although very popular later in the West, was relatively new in the twelfth centur y and no doubt influenced here from Byzantine source s.!#

By contrast, the image of the Marys at the Tomb was

well known from the Early Christian period, but the

tepresentation of Three Marys (from Mark 16:1) was a specific Western choice distinct from the Two \ larys (from Matthew 28:1), which became the charac ieristic

Byzantine iconography at an early point. This is of par-

All these things are depicted in very delicate mosaic work... ..

Outside round the Chapel ten columns are arranged which, with the arches placed on them, make a circle. On this a cornice is placed containing the scrip tural passage inscribed in gold: “Christ being raised from the dead will never die again. Death no longer has dominion over him. In that he lives he lives to God.’"131

ticular interest here because the Early Christian: iconographic tradition of loca sancta from Jerusalem consistently utilized the Two Marys.!35 Here these scenes are juxtaposed in a narrative sequence related to the holy site where these two events took plac e. The best contemporary examples of what these mosaics may have looked like are to be found in the

Psalter of Queen Melisende dating to ca. 1135.13 Close

ties have already been noted between the Anastasis

image in the codex and the mosaic in the apse of the church. We may reasonably expect Melisende to have been keenly interested in the Holy Sepul cher project, and the availability of her miniature cycle woul d have been a resource for the realization of the mosai c images being executed ca. 1149, Among the twenty-four intro-

Theodorich goes on to quote seve ral more verses from the exterior of the aedicule, whic h, however,

he comments, were hard to read beca use their color had faded! This is a puzzling remark in regard to mosaics put up only about twenty year s prior to his visit.

232

ductory min ia ures painted by Basil, we have a Lamen-

On the ceiling of this sanctuary is our Lord Jesus Christ. In his left hand he carries the Cross and in his right hand Adam. He looks regally into heaven, and he is entering heaven with

tation/Entombment on folio 9r and the Three Marys at the Tomb on folio 10 (see Plates 6.8q and 6.8s), flanking in effect the image of the Anastasis on folio 9v that directly reflects the iconography of the Holy Sepulcher mosaic, as di ussed earlier. There is no point in speculating on further details, but we should recall that both scenes at the >} »ulcher included an image of the tomb

an enormous stride, his left foot raised and his right foot still

on the ground. Surrounding him are these people: his Mother, Blessed John the Baptist, and all the Apostles. Under his feet there is a line of writing, which stretches round the

apse from wall to wall. It contains this inscription:

that is not partic ularly emphasized in the Psalter pic-

O praise him who was crucified in the Flesh!

tures but may well have been in these mosaics. The same combination of Byzantine and Western iconography, handled with a certain Crusader independence, is found in the Psalter images as we are identifying here

O thank him who was buried for your sake! O bless him who has risen from the dead!

Above this on the upright line of the apse is inscribed: “Christ went up on high to take captivity captive, and he gave gifts to men.”140

in the mosaics. The inscriptions themselves pose several problems.

Bulst identifies this latter inscription as coming from

It is not clear from the historical descriptions which were done in mosaic and therefore probably derive

Ephesians 4:8, the text of an antiphon that the canons

said on the vigil of and for the feast of the Ascension at Matins and Vespers.'*! Later pilgrims, Niccolo da Pog-

from the campaign of ca. 1149, and which were carved

and therefore may have been done as early as ca. 1119, or sometime later. There is, furthermore, no guarantee that all of the inscriptions have been recorded. Whereas the accuracy of what has been reported can be verified

gibonsi (1347), Felix Fabri (1484), and Quaresmius (1639), refer to other mosaics and inscriptions in the vaults and on the side walls of the choir, but no

twelfth-century pilgrims corroborate these images and it is problematic whether they were done by ca. 1149.1 Finally, in the main central space of the Crusader church, any mosaic decoration of the dome over the crossing remains a mystery. It is indeed possible there was some kind of image, but no pilgrim reports on it.'°

by the one inscription John of Wurzburg and Theodorich cite in common, they both include many other inscriptions quoted uniquely that are then only sporadically attested later. Finally, discrepancies occur occasionally in the descriptions. It is problematic that John of Wiirzburg says the inscription “Christ being raised . . .” was written in raised silver letters, whereas Theodorich

describes the letters as inscribed in gold. Can the inscription have been changed between the time the

The Calvary Chapel Mosaic Program

two men saw it, or is this the result of an inaccurate

The largest concentration of figural mosaic work appears to have been in the Calvary Chapel complex. We may be reasonably confident that, along with the

description?!%” It is not surprising to find that some of these inscriptions are biblical quotations and that some of them

main eastern apse mosaic, this area of church decora-

were important liturgical readings. The text of “Christ

varied, but they thematically focused on the signifi-

tion was finished by July 15, 1149, because it was here, in the Golgotha Chapel on the ground floor under the Calvary Chapel itself, that the dedication ceremony was held and the commemorative inscription was located. The evidence suggests that part of this mosaic program was Byzantine and dates from the 1040s. The

cance of Christ buried and resurrected. The main

Crusaders, it seems, reconciled these mosaics to the

being raised . . .,” for example, is from Romans 6:9ff. and was sung as the antiphon for Sunday Vespers between Easter and Advent.!38 “He came unto this place...” reflects Il Corinthians 6:16.89 Others are unidentified «nd the inscriptions on the aedicule were

Latin church by installing Latin inscriptions to go with those in Greek, as well as expanding the program for the new complex.!# Along with the aedicule of the Holy Sepulcher, the place of Calvary was the other major holy site contained in this architectural ensemble. When the Byzantines rebuilt the church of the Holy Sepulcher 1042-1048, they apparently enlarged the Calvary structure to include the Chapel of Adam in front of Golgotha on the ground level and built two chapels above Golgotha in

emphases seem to be on the Holy Sepulcher as a tomb of victory, Clirist buried for man’s salvation — the tomb aS a vessel - and the glory of Christ is risen — the tomb

is empty. To ihe extent the mosaic images mentioned above directly reflected these texts, we may expect the tomb to have been an important element in them.

In the new part of the Crusader church to the east, the focus was on the relocated apse mosaic of the Anastasis already discussed. Theodorich described this Scene as follows:

233

the southeast corner of the triporticus at the upper level.'*5 These they also decorated so that when the

in 1639.” In this case we must, therefore, consider the

Quaresmian description and evaluate its parts jn to the mosaics we have already encountered church. Quaresmius mentions the components of gram in the following sequence, located on Figure

Crusaders took control of the church, Daniel (1106-1108)

reported impressive mosaics here as well as those in the rotunda. His description is as follows: The Crucifixion of the Lord and this holy rock are all surrounded by a wall and above the Crucifixion a chamber was built, cunningly and marvellously decorated with mosaic, and on the east wall there is a mosaic of Christ crucified on the cross, skilfully and marvellously done just as if alive and even more so, just as it was then. And on the south there is

the taking down from the cross, also marvellously done. ...

Beneath the Crucifixion where the head (of Adam) lies,

there is attached as it were a little chapel, beautifully decorated with mosaic and floored with beautiful marble.14

The accounts of John of Wiirzburg and Theodorich are, unfortunately, rather summary on this important part of the church, but they include some signif icant

information. John of Wirzburg tells us: “The Place of

the Skull is to the right of the entrance of the great church, . . . the upper part of this building is beauti fully adorned with the finest mosaic. It contains the suffering of Christ and his burial, with suitable Passag es of witness from the prophets here and there.’147 Theodorich describes the complex as enter ed from the exterior porch through the Franks’ Chape l. When you go through the door, you are in a chapel which is more vener able and to be revered than any other place on earth. It is built with four vaults of great strength, and its floor is excel lently laid with marble of many kinds. The roof of the ceiling is decorated with a very fine mosaic, which shows the Prophets, that is to say David, Solomon, Isaiah and several others, holding in their hands the writings of theirs which are in harmony with Christ’s sufferings. No work on earth would equal that if only it were possible to see it clearly, but because the place has walls all round, it is somewhat dark.

The place where the cross stood on Moun t Calvary is towards the east. . . . There is a vener able altar there, ... On the left side of the altar on the wall there is a wonderfully beautiful picture of the Crucified One. Longinus stands on the right, his Lance Piercing Christ's side, and on the left is Stephaton offering him vinegar with a sponge. There is also on his left his Mother and on the right John,

. . . There are lines of Greek writing written round the Picture. On the right of this altar Nicodemus and Joseph are taking down Christ, already dead, from the Cross, and this is written there: “The Desce

nt of our Lord Jesus Christ from the Cross.’’148

No other twelfth- or thirteenth-centu ry pilgrim enlarges our knowledge of the mosa ics in this chapel complex, but what the three twelfthcentury pilgrims tell us is corroborated by the detailed account of Quaresmius

1

relation in the the pro6:

The Crucifixion, on the eastern wall of the north-

east bay of the chapel, 2 A fragmentary inscription, for the Deposition (?) on the eastern wall of the southeast bay, 3 The Sacrifice of Isaac, on the intrados of the arch separating the north and south bays of the easte rn end of the chapel, 4 A fragmentary inscription, for an [Anastasis] image “depictam liberationem sanctorum

patrum

ab

inferis, et alligationem satanae,” on the south ern wall of the southeast bay, 5

6

7 8 9

The Ascension, on the vault of the southeast bay,

The Ascension of Elijah and Elijah fed by the Raven , on the intrados of the arch separating the east and west bays of the southern side of the chapel, The prophets Daniel and Hosea, on the intrados of the arch separating the north and south bays of the

western end of the chapel,

The Last Supper, on the southern wall to the west,

The prophets Abdias and Sophonias, on the intra-

dos of the arch at the western end of the south side

of the chapel,

10 A fragmentary inscription, for the proph et Amos, on the northern arch of northeast bay of the chapel, Il A fragmentary inscription of the words of the good thief, on the arch on the south side of the north east bay, 12 Solomon and David, on the intra dos of the arch

separating the east and west bays of the north side of the chapel,

13 The Deésis (?), on the western arch of the northeast-

ern bay, 14 The prophets Habukkuk and Isaiah, on the northern arch of the northwest bay,

15 Helena and Heraclius, on the west ern end of the

northwest bay of the chapel, and 16 Floral decoration on the vaults of the two western bays.

The evidence of the twelfth-century pilgrims’ accounts in conjunction with what little we know about the somewhat unclear history of the arch itecture of this

part of the Church of the Holy Sepu lcher makes

it clear that some of these mosaics were done duri ng the Byzantine restorations, 1042-1048, some were sponsored by the Crusaders, Probably during the late 1140 s, and some were done later, between ca. 1149 and 1639. What could be seen

at the time of the dedication on July 15, 1149?

DEPOSITION

CHRIST LNAWSWOLNS SSHSA} WOHS GOOD AdaIHL

DEESIS SOLOMON

ISAAC OF| SACRIFICE

ELIAS'S ASCENSION

HERACLIUS

ABDIAS

SOPHONIOS

To Ground Level

Figure 6. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: diagram of the location of the mosaics in the Calvary Chapel (after Bulst, B. Amico, and F. Quaresmius).

tectural components of the Calvary Chapel by building the two western bays of the chapel as part of the system of galleries surrounding the south transept and “filling in” around the existing Byzantine Calvary. This provided the opportunity for the mosaic program to be expanded. Figures of the Old Testament prophets and

There can be no doubt that the mosaics of the Crucifixion and the Deposition in the Calvary Chapel and unspecified decorative mosaics in the Golgotha Chapel below dated from the eleventh century, based on the

facts that architecturally these parts of the complex surely existed then and Daniel reported their presence already

kings were added: Isaiah, Solomon, and David are mentioned specifically by the twelfth-century pilgrims, and the other individual prophet figures were probably

in 1106. Theodorich also refers to Greek inscriptions around the image of the Crucifixion. The fragmentary

inscription of Amos in Greek seems to indicate that a fig-

executed at this time as well: Habakkuk, Hosea, Daniel,

ure of this prophet also belonged to the program of 1048

Abdias, and Sophonias.' It was also probably at this time that the extant fragment of the Ascension was done. The eleventh-century Byzantine program of mosaics was apparently focused on familiar images taken from the liturgical feast cycle appropriate to this holy site with the insertion of the Deposition. The Deposition was a logical addition to the program because the

but was destroyed by later construction. That the architecture of the eastern bays of the chapel at the upper level

Mostly seems to have existed by 1048 and that the mosaic of the Entombment was mentioned by John of Wiirzburg

Suggest that the Entombment was also part of this eleventh-century program.'5! The date of the Ascension

of Christ is less certain.152 It appears that the Crusaders completed the archi-

235

a

event occurred on Calvary. The Deposition, although

not an original feast cycle picture, is of course found in middle-Byzantine programs, such as the fresco cycle at Nerezi in 1164,1§ but its position in such cycles may owe something to its appearance here at the Calvary

Chapel. The Entombment was the narrative and devotional sequel to the events on Calvary and for this the pilgrim went directly to the aedicule of the Holy Sepulcher itself, where one could visit the actual site and see a mosaic icon, as we have noted above. The Crusader expansion of this program in the 1140s reflected some similar and some distinctly different goals, when compared to the Byzantine mosaics of a hundred years earlier. The addition of a number of kings and prophets would seem to be a direct development of what was originally a Byzantine idea. The foliate decoration in the Western vaults was a favored type of mosaic in the twelfth century in both the East and the West and quite possibly echoed motifs found in the ground-floor Golgotha Chapel from the eleventh century. Buchthal has also suggested that this part of the program might well reflect motifs found in extant manuscripts from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, which would very likely have been the more immediate models.155 The Ascension mosaic is harder to account for, but it is the most important component of this program in the sense that it is the only extant frag-

ment (see Plate 7.10b; Color Plate 20).156

The Ascension image inspires caution in the use of the pilgrims’ accounts, because it is not menti oned until the seventeenth century. Moreover, Quaresmius mentions parts of the image, angels with Christ and Apostles below, that are no longer extant. The style of

the seated figure of Christ, however, leaves no doubt

that it is early. Bulst likened it to Norman-Sic ilian images of Christ from the twelfth century, but this is relevant only in general terms pertaining to its Byzantinizing style and full-length representation. The real question is whether it is eleventh-century from the Byzantine restorations, or Crusader work from the mid-twelfth century. Some of the evidence is conflicting, but a twelfth-century origin is surely correc t. In the first place, it is unlikely that this mosai c would have been done here, in the west quadrant of the eastern quadripartite vault of the south chape l, in the 1040s because there was apparently no vault at this point in

later, which would account for the disturban-= of the background mosaic tesserae on either side of © hrist’s halo. Quaresmius in fact reports a different Latin inscription, the “Viri Galilei . . .” of Acts 1:11 in association with

this mosaic, and we note that the same inscri ption — in

both Greek and Latin —- was described with the Ascension mosaic reported in the vault of the arch leadin g from the rotunda to the crossing of the Crusa der

church.'” Although the repetition of images is possible and does occur in the Crusader Church of the Holy Sep-

ulcher because of the composite nature of its ensemb le

of holy sites, the repetition of inscriptions — in contras t to

bilingual Greek and Latin inscriptions — seems less likely in the 1140s and is unprecedented otherwise. If we examine the stylistic features of this mosaic, its date in the twelfth century becomes more plausible.15 8 The figure of Christ is strikingly elongated. The proportions of the body emphasize the large and impressive head, like that of a Pantokrator in type with rich brown gray hair and beard, and the commanding blessing gesture of the Lord, now diminished by the loss of his bless-

ing hand. Over the body the ample drapery flows loosely in undulating folds across or around it and along its contours. The garment is a rich deep-blue, modulated in subtle tones with strong golden highlights. Of varying widths, lengths, and shapes, this chrysography gives the design considerable variety and complexity. The face, hand, and feet appear to be modeled in grays that bestow volume in harmony with the flowing draper y. The eyes have red linear accents below the brows; the nose is outlined in red on the right side; the lips are touged; and the hand on the book and feet are also outlined in red to give a certain colorism and vitali ty to these exposed parts of the body. The golden halc is also

the Byzantine architecture of Calvary. It could, of course,

have been the 1140s, moved to Byzantine

done elsewhere and moved to this location in however, just as the Anastasis mosaic was the main apse of the chevet. If this were a mosaic, however, it surely would not have

had a Latin inscription, “[A]sce[n] sio” as it does now.

Nonetheless, the style of the figure of Christ is strongly

urations as at Haghia Sophia in Ochrid from the mid-

eleventh century, or even in “flat” pictures, as at the Nea

Plate 7.10b.

int ings — Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem mosaics and pa

Christ mosaic in the Calvary Chapel.

237

Moni on Chios in 1055, or in Jerusalem in the Melisende Psalter (see Plate 6.8u) of ca. 1135. The loose drapery style, when compared to major Byzantine examples of the eleventh century clearly owes little to the severe linear, schematic, coloristic or mannered styles of the mosaics at Hosios Lukas (late tenth, early eleventh?),

Daphni (ca. 1080), the Nea Moni (1055), or even the fres-

coes of Haghia Sophia at Ochrid (ca. 1050ff.).!® In the twelfth century, this artist is developing toward, but is still distant from, the specifics of the painted churches in Cyprus, Sicilian mosaic ensembles, or the Ascension Master of San Marco (ca. 1200), or the fresco work on

Yugoslavian soil at Nerezi (ca. 1164) and Kurbinovo

(1191).°! It is toward the more fully modeled Comnenian style of the mid-twelfth century that this Christ relates, as seen in the slightly later column painting of St. John the Evangelist at Bethlehem, from the 1160s (see Plates 9.12a and 9.28a) without chrysography,!* and some of the transept mosaics at Bethlehem in the more abstract agitated dynamic style also from the 1160s. Consider the Doubting Thomas or the left side of the Ascension fragment, which emphasize a splendid colorism and copious gold and silver highlighting.! From the Holy Sepulcher in the late 1150s and early 1160s, one can also observe the figural handling of the illustrated Gospels in Paris and the Vatican, not so much in terms of the specific drapery style, but rather with regard to the long slender proportions and the intensified Byzantine impact on their artists in contrast to other Crusader manuscripts more closely associated with the Melisende Psalter. We propose to position this mosaic between Basil’s Byzantine-influenced style in the psalter of ca. 1135, largely based on the copy of eleventh-century models, and the more up-todate Byzantine-influenced painting, in all media, in the 1160s in the Latin Kingdom. Despite the accomplished formal handling of this mosaic in a strongly Byzantine-influenced mode, the iconography of Christ indicates that it was done bya

Crusader artist. The pose of the figure is unusua l; the

this iconography of pose, color of robe, and are of

heaven also differentiates this mosaic from the miniature in the Psalter of Queen Melisende.'® Thus, even though the mosaic is distinct from standard Byzantine images, it is also independent from, and in this case more accomplished artistically, than the corresponding picture in the Psalter on iconographical as well! as stylistic grounds. This is an indication of the variety that characterizes Crusader art and is another reflection of the multifarious backgrounds of its artists. We shall see further indications elsewhere, but it is here in the 1140s and 1150s perhaps that it is possible for the first

time to see Crusader art reach a stage of development that demonstrates this level of maturity and sophistication. Finally, although unfortunately we do not know of other works by this artist, we can identify him as important and proficient. He was possibly a Byzantine-trained Western artist; however, this deter-

mination must await more intensive study of his technique and the characteristics of this particular mosaic. In any case, this work is surely worthy of being carefully conserved and restored so that its merits can be more fully recognized and understood. The image of the Ascension combined with the others attributed to the campaigns of the 1040s or the 1140s still leaves unaccounted for a certain number of mosaics on the list of Quaresmius. It is impossible to state categorically which of these may have been visible in 1149, but we can make the following observations until more evidence helps to clarify the situation. Of the major feast mosaics, the Last Supper is unlikely to have been done in the eleventh century because of its location, and it seems likely to have been done

much later when, perhaps like the Pentecost referred to

above, access to its holy site became difficult or impos-

sible. Whenever this mosaic was executed, it would

then have been programmatically coherent to add the Old Testament images with typological significance, including the unusual scene of Elijah fed by the Raven,

book is held over the more extended leg and the other leg is drawn up vertically, the Opposite arrangement of standard Byzantine types in this period. The Christ looks more like a Meestas-type figure than a Byzantine

Ascension

trast to the more archaic type with Christ on a throne.'® It is interesting to point out, however, that

for the Eucharist, the ascension of Elijah, for the Ascension, and the sacrifice of Isaac, for the Crucifixion. Of

in this regard. Moreover, the figure of

these scenes only the sacrifice of Isaac enjoyed alternative association with this specific site in terms of the pilgrims’ identification of the sacrifice as having taken place here and the presence of an earlier chapel commemorating this event.1°7 It is obvious that such typological programs were a staple of Western medieval art in the twelfth century, but the unusual iconography of Elijah fed by the Raven may indicate a much later addition. Among the other images, the angel in the northeastern bay vault is somewhat problematic program-

Christ wears the sumptuous deep-blue robe in contrast to the standard golden garments worn in major Byzantine Ascensions of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Latin inscription is placed next to his head. In middle-Byzantine art, the inscription identi fying

Christ, “IC XC,” is sometimes placed there, but not the

identifying caption. The fact that Christ is seated on the arc of heaven with a concentric radiating mandorla is, however, standard in middle-Byzantine art, in con-

238

matically, but it may have served to balance the image of the Lord in the southeastern vault.

The Deésis is a wholly Byzantine iconography and this image may have dated from the eleventh century, or after 1150. The image of Helena and Heraclius seems to be a unique idea. Whereas Constantine and Helena —

associated with the Holy Cross — were the standard pair in Byzantine art, and indeed appeared in the rotunda of the Holy Sepulcher, the substitution of Heraclius for Constantine is unknown elsewhere. It cannot be doubted, however, that the special circumstances of their personal association with the True Cross in Jerusalem

justifies their appearance at the site of the Crucifixion. Thus we may suppose that this image was put up when Byzantine influence was at a significant highpoint in the Latin Kingdom. Whereas this mosaic pair could not predate the Crusader construction of the 1140s, it is possible

this image along with the Deésis was put up at the time the great program of mosaics was being executed for the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, under joint sponsorship of the Crusader king, the Byzantine emperor, and the bishop of Bethlehem. Associated with the devotion to the Crucifixion on Calvary were subsidiary chapels directly dedicated to the Holy Cross in one way or other. Beyond the main apse of the chevet and the Calvary Chapel, to the east and below the level of the ambulatory down a set of approximately thirty stairs, was the Chapel of St. Helena (see Plate 7.3aa) and, southeast of that down

another set of eleven stairs, the Grotto of the Holy Cross (see Plate 7.3bb). St. Helena was honored here for

the finding of the True Cross in the grotto nearby. The

the right.!71 The somewhat elongated torso of Christ is

yellowish with white highlights, outlined in black. He wears a pale greenish loincloth, also outlined in black,

with dark folds arranged vertically on the right side and across the figure, curved folds swinging across the right hip from waist level, and “V” folds on the left side

at waist level. One notes especially: red markings on the loincloth in the form of paired stripes across the folds, the knot in the loincloth at Christ’s navel, the fact

that the feet are given separate nails — so this must be a four-nail crucifixion, and, finally, the cross is shaded on the right side only. To the left, the Virgin wears a maroon-red garment with red buskins; the sleeve of

her upper garment is blue, and her halo yellow, all outlined in black. She holds her right hand with her left in a familiar gesture of distress, but one unusual for her.'7 To the right, St. John appears to wear a gray tunic with red clavi, and he has a yellow halo, all outlined in black. Overall the style is very painterly, freely brushed, and somewhat schematic. Some of the iconography is typical of twelfth-century crucifixions from Italy, and of course we do not know about the details of the same scene in the Calvary Chapel to which it may also have been related. The style of the loincloth with its distinctive knot and its markings, and the hand gesture of the Virgin, in particular, make us think of Italy, but the shaded cross and the strange colorism of the figures clearly suggest a Crusader context in the third quarter of the century.! Thus it appears the work was done by a painter of Italian origin, but the plastically modeled V-fold drapery suggests he was working in the 1160s.

Chapel of St. Helena, was, as we have seen in chapter

4, one of the earliest parts of the complex to be restored

by the Crusaders after the conquest of Jerusalem in

1099. An altar was dedicated to Helena there. In the grotto where the Cross was said to have been actually found, there was a special altar to mark the spot and a fresco of the Crucifixion was done (Plate 7.10c). The Crucifixion painting was uncovered during

recent studies of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and published by V. Corbo.1 The extant fragment is located low down on the right front face of the small apse identified by Corbo as eleventh-century construction. This placement on the northeast wall of the grotto puts it directly adjacent to the site where the Holy Cross was said to have been found. On the southeastern wall additional frescoes, very fragmentary and barely legible, were found dating from the eleventh century.! The Crucifixion fragment depicts the torso and lower body of Christ on the cross, from the neck down;

, me Plate 7.10c Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem: mosaics and paintings — fragment, fresco painting of the

there is also part of the halo, hands, and arm of the Virgin to the left, and the halo and shoulder of St. John at

Crucifixion. (Photo after Corbo)

239

Here appears to be another indication that the work of decorating the Holy Sepulcher on the interior — as well as on the exterior — went on beyond, in some cases well beyond, the dedication on July 15, 1149. Elsewhere in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher were two other chapels dedicated to the Holy Cross that were mentioned by the pilgrims. Theodorich describes their locations: at the left of the Church on the north side there is a chapel in honour of the Holy Cross, where a great part of the venerable Wood is kept in a gold and silver vessel, which is under the

guardianship of the Syrians. Again on the same side, near this chapel and to its east, is a most venerable chapel, in which there is a venerable altar joined in honour to the Holy Cross. It has a great part of the Blessed Wood in a vessel of gold, silver, and precious stones, so that it can suitably be seen. This is kept with the greatest reverence in a beautiful niche, and Christians have the custom of carrying it, when necessity demands, as a saving sign against the pagans in battle. This chapel also is splendidly decorated with mosaic. This is the Cross which Heraclius, Emperor of the Romans, seized from Chosroes, King of the Persians, in a battle he fought with him, and he returned it to the Christians.174 Theodorich’s account dates from 1174, but it is impor-

tant to recognize the place of honor prepared for the great reliquary of the True Cross. Given the importance of this relic to the Crusaders throughout the twelfth century, we may assume that this chapel was included as part of the program of mosaics planned for the

Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1149, but these

mosaics may not have been executed until later, at the time of Henry the Lion’s visit in 1173. The mosaic program, though extensive on the interior of the church and in some of its major chapels, did not stop there. On the exterior of the Church, primarily on the south transept facade, were further mosaic decorations, some figural on the tympana above the main portals and some decorative on the voussoirs above the walled-up entrance to Calvary from the Franks’ Chapel, as we have mentioned above. Very little survives on the tympana, and the pilgrims are not in agreement as to what there was to see and where it was to be seen. Both John of Wirzburg and Theodorich quote a text, derived from John 20:15-16, possibly set in mosaic, referring to the risen Christ: Why woman, weepest thou? Thou seek’st a man, yet him dost worship now! Thou shoulds’t remember me. But while Ilive I'll not be touched by thee.1%5

Only Theodorich also refers to an image of the Lord with Mary Magdalene prostrate at his feet located

“ante fores ecclesie inter duas ianuas,” with the text on a “cirographum,” that is, a document that Ma ty presumably held.'” The choice of Christ and Mary Magdalene, taken from Mark 16:9-10, and especially John 20:11-18, to announce the Church of the Resu; rection is an important indication of the Eastern contexi of this

program. Instead of choosing the image of Christ rising

from the tomb, as frequently found in the West during the twelfth century, the image of, in effect, the “noli me tangere” relates the church to the garden of the tomb it

occupied, including the site where Christ appeared to the Magdalene to be found inside, as noted by several pilgrims. It also emphasizes the presence of Mary Magdalene whose birthplace just north of Tiberius in Galilee the Crusaders could have easily visited. Most important, this scene would have complemented the image on the lintel below in which Christ appeared to Martha and Mary Magdalene as part of the story of the raising of her brother Lazarus (John 11:1ff.). This image must have been the central part of the

ensemble in mosaic on the facade. Unfortunately, noth-

ing remains of it in situ and all we can say at this point is that remnants of bleached tesserae can be seen above

the lintel of the eastern door (see Plate 7.10e), more of

which are visible in nineteenth-century photographs than are detectable today.177 The mosaics on the voussoirs of the Franks’ Chapel

are not in doubt because some are extant (see Plate

7.10d; Color Plate 21).!78 Because they are nonfigural, they give us a precious glimpse of what the extensive decorative repertory of floral and foliate mosaics must have been like in the church. Furthermore, they clearly indicate that just as the architecture of the church

reflected its Jerusalem setting with the use of the dome, its double doors, and its reused sculpture, so the mosaics

here also reflect the sumptuous mosaics that could be seen elsewhere in the holy city, principally on the Ha: al-Sharif, especially in the Templum Domini. The Franks’ Chapel where this mosaic appears is ¢ rectangular domed foyer, richly decorated with scult ture as well, at the top of a flight of stairs rising from

the exterior of the main south transept entrance to the

Church of the Holy Sepulcher.!” This chapel was no doubt built as part of the main project; thus we can probably assume that it was finished by the dedication on July 15, 1149.18 The mosaics in question are on the voussoirs of the arched entry — now walled up — from the Franks‘ Chapel into the Calvary Chapel. There are four bands of decoration on the voussoirs over the typanum decorating the main entrance. The

first band is on the intrados adjoining the tympanum; it is decorated with a green foliate interlace design with paired leaves on a gold ground, separated from the

KWAN SIN

i ON

Ni

Plate 7.10d.

Church of the Holy cee

ase

CANE

loraeslere mosaics and paintings —

voussoir mosaics above the tympanum of the blocked door in the Franks’ Chapel. (Photo: John Crook)

The third band is the largest — located on the face of the voussoir — and the most striking, set on a turquoiseblue ground. Framed on top and bottom with colorful glass tesserae, the basic design is focused on six-part golden circles separated by paired hearts, also in gold, positioned tip to tip. The interiors of the circles are made of alternating red and dark blue sections with white ceramic “dots” at the center. Again here the comparison is with mosaics done at the Dome of the Rock from the seventh century. The final band appears above, on the intrados of the second voussoir. This design, which is damaged along the

tympanum by a thin red filet. Rosen-Ayalon compares this with a tenth-century Fatimid fresco from Cairo, but its out the likely relationship of the mosaic

design to the more complex foliate sculpture motif on the tympanum immediately below.

The second band articulates the transition from the intrados to the face of the voussoir. It consists of golden

tesserae organized as alternating lozenges and pointed ovals with yellow-ochre ceramic “dots” or medallions

(diameter = ca. 1 cm) above and below their junctures. For this design Rosen-Ayalon finds a comparison in wall mosaics from the Dome of the Rock in the seventh century and parallels for the use of the ceramic elements from mamluke sites nearby but later.

top, consisted of square, linked cross-shaped designs in gold with dark-blue centers; red interstices below and

241

Reflection on the overall program of mosaic decoration carried out ca. 1149 in the interior and on the exterior of the Crusader church, even as we know it in very sketchy fashion from these written descriptions and

these three fragmentary remains, brings to light several important features. As Bulst has pointed out, the mosaics existed to mark

the places where Christ suffered, died, and was resur-

rected from the dead, often with prophets and apostles

and occasionally certain representatives of church and state, for example, Constantine, Helena, and Heraclius,

Plate 7.10e.

as witnesses to the events at these sites.183

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem:

mosaics and paintings — view of tesserae on the lower part of the tympanum of the right (east) portal. above, where the damage leaves little extant; indications

of alternating turquoise and bright blue. For this type of design, Rosen-Ayalon looks to Byzantine mosaics of mainland Greece in the eleventh century for comparisons. The idea of Byzantine mosaicists is of course not foreign to the Holy Sepulcher. We have already seen that a substantial portion of the figural program of the interior existed from the restorations of 1042-1048. It is also true that mosaic floors of the opus sectile or tesselated type seem to date from the 1040s as well. Recent Franciscan excavations have located portions of a number of these floors in the Anastasis rotunda area.'8! Presumably these typically geometric, multicolored tesselated floors were visibly part of the Crusader church in 1149, complementing the Byzantine program of figural

mosaics in the rotunda above, and continued by Cru-

sader work for the expanded church.182

Like the image of the Christ of the Ascension, these

There is a certain continuity between the sculptural scenes leading up to Christ’s passion on the wester n lintel of the exterior main portal of the church, and the

narrative sequence which then carries the pilgrim from the facade, to the Calvary Chapel, to the Holy Sepulcher itself and then to the Anastasis and the Ascension in the apse of the chevet and vaulted intrados of the rotunda arch. It is interesting that these narrative scenes represent, so far as we can discern their iconographic characteristics from written descriptions, a series of icons of the climactic events of the life of Christ, blending East and West in a manner comparable to the series of scenes found as the introductory miniatures in the Melisende Psalter. Just as we find narrative and symbolic imagery combined in the sculpture of the lintels of the main

south portals, the mosaics reflect a similar richness of

program. In particular, we find an interest in the relationship of the life of Christ to Old Testament predecessors and subsequent witnesses in the era of grace.

Limited as our knowledge of their stylistic characteristics may be because of their destruction, these mosaics evidently strongly reflected their Eastern ambiente in style and technique, judging from the extant fragments of the Christ in the Calvary Chapel vault and the decorated voussoirs in the Franks’ Chapel. Thus, although Wwe cannot see the hands of many of these artists at work from their finished results, we may reasonably suppose that numerous mosaicists trained in the Byzantine mode, and probably some Moslems — for the decorative

decorative designs are tantalizing in giving us so limited a glimpse of what must have been a sumptuous and impressive mosaic program for the churc h. Nonetheless, not only do we sense the special charac ter of the imagery and the designs, the richness of the repertory, the accomplishment of the technique, and the impressive quality of these mosaics, we also have a sample of what must have been mosaic work of extraordinary and distinctive colorism, a characterist ic we can also see in the manuscript illumination from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher. Rosen-Ayal on speculates, correctly, that Moslem and Byzantine mosaicists may have been employed in executing the voussoir mosaic work for such a program. Extrapolatin g these tiny samples to the vast surfaces the new church would have provided for mosaics, we can only imagine with difficulty how splendid the Crusader church must

designs — as well, were at work here.

Far from reflecting the lack of programmatic intent, these mosaics clearly deserve to be thought of in rela-

tion to other major programs in the twelfth centur y, albeit with the unique circumstances of the Holy Sepulcher in view. Approached from a positive aspect, the written descriptions of the mosaics of the Holy Sepulcher can yield more to our knowledge of this major ensemble through future research despite the destruction of the physical images themselves.

have looked on the day of its dedication, both inside and out, above and below.

242

It is evident that in order to understand the sub-

it is difficult to be very specific because almost nothing

component that needs to be critically evalu-

ful, do not categorically indicate the dates for the various works. On one element of the church there is no

stance of the program of mosaics, the inscriptions form a major

survives to use as evidence, and the texts, while help-

ated. Incieed, inscriptions such as these in many monumental

programs invite such scrutiny, both here in the

doubt, however; the bell tower, or campanile. The

Crusader Holy Land and elsewhere. The loss of the Holy Sepulcher mosaics done as part of the Crusader campaign is truly unfortunate because

masonry evidence of the extant monument itself, the textual sources pertaining to the monument, and the archeology of its relationship to the south transept facade indicate that it must have been completed sometime after 1154. In 1154, Muhammed al-Idrisi, a Moslem living at the

there is a reasonable probability that this program had considerable impact on medieval art in the Crusader

States and in western Europe long after 1149, either in terms of individual scenes or of aspects of the programmatic ensemble taken together.

court of Roger II, the Norman Sicilian king, wrote a

description of Jerusalem in which he refers for the first time to the bell tower above the southern entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.'* After that, however, the campanile was part of most pilgrims’ accounts. Although Theodorich does not mention it, it is referred to by John of Wiirzburg and in the anonymous La Citez de Jerusalem, and it takes its place in many later descriptions.'§5 Thus, far from being a product of the period just before 1187 as de Vogiié and Enlart thought, we should see it as a construction of the 1150s.186 As seen today, the campanile is a truncated version of the Crusader original judging from the later images

Finally, it is abundantly clear that the Crusader program was centered around the various holy sites within the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and, despite apparent Byzantine influence on individual scenes, had

little to do with the “classical program” of feast pictures in Byzantine church decoration. On the other hand, it is also clear that the Crusaders made a real

effort to link the parts of the decorative program through narrative sequencing, and biblical-liturgical content both in the inscriptions and the feast scenes of the figural images. The sculpture, frescoes, and mosaics were not the only decorations probably to be seen on the day of the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1149. In fact, the twelfth-century pilgrims mention numerous other aspects of the decoration of the church. The problem is that it is more difficult to date these other ele-

(see Plates 7.2a, 7.2b, 7.11a, 7.11b, 7.11c; Color Plates 18,

19). What is incontestable is that the bell tower in its

modern configuration is shorter than the adjoining Anastasis rotunda, whereas the early images, especially the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century pictures, however fanciful, consistently show it as taller than the

dome over the Holy Sepulcher. Even the mid-twelfthcentury Cambrai map, with its formulaic indications of the various Crusader churches and confused arrangement of the Holy Sepulcher, does represent the church with a campanile that is taller than the dome of the Anastasis rotunda.'®” Using the fourteenth-century Vatican manuscript drawing and Erhard Reuwich’s woodcut of ca. 1486 in comparison with photographs of its

ments to 1149, when so few are extant and most were

lost after the Crusaders left Jerusalem. These elements

include twelfth-century altars, textiles, doors, bells, grills, lamps, candlesticks, marble floors, icons, chalices, croziers, gemellions, enamelwork, metalwork, and

goldsmiths’ work. Furthermore, these elements are

referred to mostly by the later pilgrims, namely, John of Wiirzburg, Theodorich, and Johannes Phocas, whose accounts date in the 1170s and 1180s, not to mention

current condition, we can determine some important

features about the Crusader version.!*§ It was two stories high at its base, comparable in height to the facade, and instead of a single story above the base with paired arched fenestration as it has now, there were three stories. The first two stories were bonded to the wall of the facade of the church, but all upper stories were freestanding. The tower was capped with a complex “calotte cdtelé,” or as Nicolas Poggibonsi called it, an octagonal cupola, as found on Arab minarets and mausolea in Cairo and Damascus.1*? It is clear that the campanile was built on the walls of a Byzantine chapel, one of three that bordered the western side of the parvis in front of the south facade

those after 1187. We shall consider these liturgical vessels, items of church furniture, and embellishments in

chapter 9, when we consider other developments in sculpture and metalwork, and the reports of these pil-

grims in more detail.

What then can we say about the completion of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher after July 15, 1149? Various theories have been advanced about when the Crusader construction and decoration was accomplished, as we have already seen above. Furthermore, it is

almost certain that the two sculptured lintels were finished sometime after the dedication, but probably not

long after, in the 1150s. Some of the mosaics may also

of the church.'® Sandoli pointed out that an inscrip-

have carried over to the period after the dedication, but

243

ey a oe g IN —cre O a gy Q > = southwest. (Photo: John Crook) iea

Plate 7.11a.

to)se —GSv 3 pper

stories fror m the

Campanile: general view from the southeast. Plate 7.11c. Campana detail, the eastern uptT story.

|

iT

ALLL {

es

nus me fecit,” was found by a seventeenthtion, “10 century ‘vanciscan, M. Morone de Maleo, inside the tower. \is inscription, no longer extant, has been interpreted to record the name of the architect, a certain ordanus, or Jordanus, who is not otherwise known. He could have been Frankish-born in the Holy Land, as Enlari s iggested, or could have come from the West. Enlart « suggested that the tower reflected more than one master and that perhaps the cupola on top,

designed

the Anastasis or the Church of the Resurrection, was the greatest single ecclesiastical project sponsored by the Crusaders in the 1140s, indeed during the entire twelfth century.! The sophistication of its architectural design brought the main holy sites of Calvary and the Sepulcher into harmony with numerous lesser devotional stations, all within a luxuriously decorated church. It is striking that mosaics constituted the main focus of these decorations very much in keeping with the Byzantine mode, seen elsewhere in the Latin

by an Arab architect sometime after 1244,

replaced an early spire.!”

Mediterranean world, as, for example, in Sicily and

Finally, it has been universally and correctly recognized that the tower was built as a change from, or at least an addition to, the original plan of the facade, as

Venice. It is unusual that significant figural sculpture was also part of that program, both on the exterior and the interior. Western pilgrims from north of the Alps visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulcher would readily recognize and feel at home in a church laid out along the lines of prominent pilgrimage-road examples in France and

indicated in particular by the abrupt interruption in the second-story hood molding still seen today. Thus, whoever the master builder was ca. 1149 when the church was dedicated, he added the campanile as a separate

unit, and as an inverse counterbalance to the smaller

Spain. Nonetheless the domes, the mosaics, and the

Franks’ Chapel on the eastern side of the facade. Although the impressive height of the original tower and its rectangular shape echoes the characteristic form of the Syrian minaret, of which the minaret of the great mosque in Aleppo (1089-1094) is the most famous example, it appears unlikely to have been modeled solely on early Moslem minarets from Jerusalem or other cities in the Latin Kingdom with prominent mosque complexes.'%° In the first place, its proportions are heavier, its use of buttressing differentiates it, and its lack of architectural decoration makes it rather austere by comparison. Thus it appears that the idea of a single campanile set as an independent or semi-independent component to the facade of a church, a characteristically Italian eleventh- and twelfth-century feature, seems to have been stimulated by the Levantine context and adapted for use here.’ It is a striking climax to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher that provided it with the highest tower in the Crusader city and completed the remarkable blend of Eastern and Western elements that were part of this unique and complex building.

centralizing focus on the domed crossing and especially the rotunda made clear the Eastern inspiration for much of this project. The special character of this place and this church was furthermore stated by the main entrance on the south facade. Pointed arches and domes, mosaics and figural sculpture, and rich archi-

tectural articulation in the form of Roman-style entablatures, godroons, and foliate decorative moldings

announced the location of the holiest shrine in Christendom. Although not entirely finished by the time of its dedication on July 15, 1149, this church had a signifi-

cant impact on art in the Crusader States during the 1140s and 1150s (Map 5, this chapter), partly through the importance of its holy sites, partly through the array of artists who joined its workshops over the life of the project, partly because of its role as the state church of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and partly through the patronage of Queen Melisende. It was, in

any case, one of the most impressive pilgrimage churches in the Christian world, and the greatest tomb church in Christendom: home of the empty sepulcher of Christ and the burial place of the kings of Jerusalem.

Conclusion There can be little doubt that the Church of the Holy

Sepulcher in Jerusalem, variously called the Church of

245

CHAPTER 8

Crusader Art in the Reign of Queen Melisend and King Baldwin III 1143-1163 A. Jerusalem and the Latin Kingdom: 1143-1152 The temple of the Lord is holy. Psalm 64:5

This temple took forty-six years to build, and you are going to raise it up in three days! John 2:20

GU

Ithough the Holy Sepulcher was obvi . : y ously the salie nt ecclesia. stic: al project and a major focus of attention for the : king, queen, and patriarch in Jeru salem \} from the early 1140s to the early wee f\Nwexvy 1150s, there were many other impo rtant projects involving signific ant artistic developments —

as well, in some of which Que en Melisend

e was also substantially involved. Even though explicit infor-

mation about her involvem ent is lacking,

we cannot doubt that she was active in the Holy Sepulcher enterPrise, given its newly promin ent role as the state church

for burials and coronations. Certainl

y, she participated directly in other Proj ects; we have specific evidence for some of them. The lack of commentary by contemporary historians and pilgrims notwithstanding, with all these developments we must essentially continue to “ possible patronage by studying the monuments themselve s, whether the y be architecture, sculpture, painting, metalwork, coinage, or some other medium. Following the rebuilding of St. Anne’s and the construction of St. Lazarus at Bethany, Melisende apparently interested herself in the support of these institutions. We have indications that the Church of St. Anne received holdings in the mai n market area, where cer-

246

tain shops may still be seen today with Latin inscriptions on their walls designating them as the property of this church and convent. After the Holy Sepulcher project was substantially complete, Meli sende had apparently been active in stimulating the rebuilding of important parts of the market, incl uding stalls along Malquisinat Street in 1152, with Arab labor recruited from Al-Bira.! She also seems to have been involved in the rebuilding of the fruit and vege table market on David Street nearby, all of which empl oyed the characteristic broad, slightly pointed arches seen at St. Anne’s and at the Holy Sepulcher. In 1151, at the western end of David Street, she had the felicitous idea of suppressing a mill just outside the Jaffa Gate to facilitate the flow of traffic in and out of the city at that critical spot.2 Melisend

e’s interest in the welfare of the hols city was wide-ranging, her concern for the many different Christian sects in Jerusalem was exemplary, and her patronage included many smaller churches along with major ones like the Holy Sepulcher. Th ese activities are a tribute to her leadershi p and determination to pursue a stable course for the Latin Kingdom while her son was

in his minority. Indeed some of her enthusiasm and energy may hav e been spurred on by Bernard of Clairvaux, whe n in 1143, he wrote to encourage her in the wake of the death of her husband, King Fulk3

ee Se

Among

these many projects, it is unclear what, if any-

and provided the entrance to a crypt where a cenotaph in honor of Samuel is found. The church is unusual among Crusader buildings because of its single transept. Otherwise the surviving vaulting features the broad pointed arches and groin vaults seen in the Holy Sepulcher and other projects associated with Melisende’s name prior to 1150.° This vaulting is moreover typical of a number of Crusader projects in this period that were designed architecturally to

thing, Melis ende had to do with the building of the

Church of St. Samuel for the Premonstratensians on the site of “Montjoie,” the hill from which pilgrims coming to Jerusalem on the old Roman road first saw Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher (Plate 8A.1; see also Plate 2.4). The site was revered as the burial place of the prophet Samuel and called Ramatha by earlier pilgrims, but whatever was built on the site before the Crusaders arrived was apparently gone when Daniel visited there in 1106-1108 and

include holy sites of some sort, in this case with an

add-on side chapel. A much more important project in terms of its asso-

referred only to the hill with the view of the holy city.4

Bernard of Clairvaux was in correspondence with the rulers of the Latin Kingdom, Baldwin and Melisende, in 1143 and 1150, making clear that it was the Order of Pre-

ciation with Melisende was the Church of St. James (Plates 8A.2a-8A.2c). The cathedral church of St. James was, of course, an Armenian, not a Crusader, project,

montré who should establish themselves here in response

and the circumstances of its construction are very little known. The queen, by virtue of her orthodox ancestry, had a deep interest in the Eastern Christians in Jerusalem and she extended her personal support to a number of orthodox sects.” Certainly, among these, the Armenians were among the most important by virtue of her ties through her Armenian mother from Melitene, Morphia. Thus the rebuilding of the Armenian church must have been of substantial importance to her. The site of the church was sanctified by the martyrdom of St. James the Greater, decapitated in A.D. 44, as recorded in Acts 12:2. A church on the traditional place of execution of St. James the Greater had been built by the Georgians in the eleventh century. Remarkably, only John of Wiirzburg among Crusader pilgrims, writing about 1170, comments on this in relation to the famous Santiago da Compostella in Spain. He says: “The head of the Apostle [James] is reverently kept there. He had been beheaded by Herod and his body was placed in a ship in Joppa by his disciples and they took it away to Galicia, but his head remained in Palestine.”®

to an earlier royal invitation by Baldwin II. Whenever the Premonstratensians built their church and cloister, proba-

bly about 1150, the church existed by 1157, when it is referred to in a charter of the Holy Sepulcher> The church, now a mosque, had an odd plan with a projecting transept and is much rebuilt. Nothing of the cloister survives except on the exterior, where paired bent-elbow

columns

can still be seen, parallels for

which can be found all over the Latin Kingdom in the 1140s and 1150s. The church was a moderately small (36 x 8 m), single-nave structure with a round apse,

four bays, and a large transept on the southeast side only. A chapel on the north side consisted of three bays

When the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem in the

twelfth century, the Georgians relinquished their property to the Armenians for unknown reasons. The Armenians had established good relations with the Crusaders and in 1141 their Catholicus, Gregory III, participated in a church council called by the papal legate at the Church of St. Mary on Mt. Sion.’ It is reasonable to suppose that in this context of amicable relations and with the special interest of the queen, the church was erected in the 1140s.1° The church itself is an Armenian, that is, Oriental

Plate 8A.1.

design in its centralized plan and exotic six-ribbed double dome." It is an irregular rectangle measuring 24 x 17.5 m, with special chapels commemorating its major holy sites and relics. The basic plan resembles a middle-Byzantine cross-in-square type and the east end has

Neby Samwil: Church of St. Samuel, Montjoie,

plan (after Enlart).

247

peer

| j | MOUXES mu shcnisric. |

‘

CD.

SUIVANT ALE.

LONGITUDIN.

COUPE

Plate 8A.2a. Cathedral Vincent and Abel).

Plate 8A.2b. nave.

of Sis James, Jerusalem: plan and elevation (after

Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem: capital,

Plate 8A.2c. Cathedral of St. James, Jerusale m: view, entrance to the main nave from the south porch.

248

similarities with that of St. George at Lydda, but the double

The groin vaultdome is certainly Armenian.!2

cher, we can presume that Melisende helped facilitate the arrangements for the sharing of masons."*

ing of the nave and aisles and the four great pointed arches urder the dome closely parallel work at the

The Templum Domini and Crusader Sculpture on the Haram

Holy Seyilcher, however. Indeed the broad, pointedarch entrance to the south porch has godrooned vous-

soirs just like the south portals to the Holy Sepulcher.!3 from the Holy Sepulcher, or

Besides the Holy Sepulcher and St. James, the most

trained in the Holy Sepulcher masons’ yard, were employed here for a time between 1141 and 1149.

important domed church in Jerusalem at this time was the Templum Domini, what we know today as the Dome of the Rock (Plates 8A.3a—8A.3c; Color Plate 17).15 Although its official dedication in 1141 by the papal legate, Alberic of Ostia, did not involve any substantial architectural alterations so far as we know, some new decorations were apparently carried out on the interior and the exterior at about this time or shortly thereafter.6 Again, as in the case of the Holy

Conceivably

masons

The south porch of the Church of St. James was enclosed in modern times and now is identified as the Etchmiadzin Chapel. The most important chapels were and are, however, on the north side: the chapels of St.

James — where his execution is said to have taken place and his head is buried — St. Stephen, and St. Menas, the

last now serving as the treasury of the Armenian patriarchate. Although the patrons of this church were obviously the Armenians to whom it belonged, the architecture is, like that of the Holy Sepulcher, an amalgam of

the tradition of the sponsors along with the vocabulary of the Christian masons working in Jerusalem in the 1140s, some of whom created the distinctive Crusader

Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Considering that St. James partook of certain features of the Holy Sepul-

Plate 8A.3a.

Sepulcher, we cannot assume any particular state of the building at the moment of dedication, the more so in

this instance because it occurred when the legate was

available to do it in Jerusalem at Eastertime, 1141, hav-

ing returned from his business in Antioch. It is, however, notable that William of Tyre does cite this dedication — but not that of the Holy Sepulcher! — as follows: “Legatus igitur, . .., tercia post sanctum Pascha die una

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Templum Domini (Dome of the Rock) — view

in the 1920s, exterior. (Photo: Savignac, Ecole Biblique)

249

Plate 8A.3b. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem: Rock) — view in the 1980s, exterior.

Plate 8A.3c.

Haram

Tem plum Domini

al Sharif, Jerusalem:

Templum Domini (Dome of the Rock) — view,

interior. (Photo: Savignac, Ecol e Biblique)

250

(Dome of the

cum domino patriarcha et episcoporum nonnullis Templum Domini sollempriter dedicavit.”17

The Templum Domini was, of course, the main church anc’ domed centerpiece of the Haram al-Sharif, where, since 1131, the Templars had been located in the Jemplum Salomonis nearby. Austin canons had apparently been esta blished here even earlier, since 1112, that is, at about the same time they were also installed at the

them, were they done in the 1140s. The fact that Fretel-

lus and al-Idrisi did not mention them is unsurprising because neither account mentions such decoration at other sites, especially the Holy Sepulcher, and neither of these travelers, certainly not the Moslem al-Idrisi, is writing in detail about images, objects, or Latin inscrip-

Holy Sepulcher.'® The Templum Domini was also lav-

tions, preferring instead to emphasize other things. On the other hand, the importance of the public inscriptions for proclaiming the Templum Domini as the

ishly endowed by Melisende, perhaps initially with the

House of God in Latin from the Bible, and supplanting

thought that she might eventually be buried there.!° Thus it may well have been Melisende herself who helped sponsor the elaborate iron grille that encircled the rock beneath the dome on the interior (see Plates 6.7 and 8A.3c), and the extensive mosaic inscriptions in Latin that were put up later on the exterior and interior. Certainly the idea to rededicate and decorate the building was not new. It already had been referred to

Arabic texts from the Koran, was an urgent requirement once the building was finally dedicated.

by an early prior of the Austin canons of the temple,

Achard d’Arrouaise (1112-1136), in a Latin poem to a

certain King Baldwin, probably King Baldwin I (?),

that is, sometime in the period 1118-1131, following the

foundation of the Templar Order in 1120.?° Achard d’Arrouaise was seeking to hasten the rededication of the building by attempting to settle certain property

The problem is, of course, that all of the text in

mosaic and most of the other decoration on the Dome of the Rock from the Crusader period was eradicated later, when the Moslems retook control of Jerusalem

and the Haram under Saladin in 1187. We know that shortly after the canons were installed there ca. 1112, the Dome of the Rock was altered ca. 1115 by the covering of the rock with marble and the erection of an altar for their services.24 The content and program of the later decorations and other evidence can help us date the inscriptions more securely to the 1140s, that is, about the time of the consecration and shortly thereafter. It is clear that some of what Theodorich and John of

rights, and he refers to the then existing decoration of

Wiirzburg described, however, was installed long after the consecration in 1141. In particular, there is the golden cross that was placed on top of the dome, mentioned by later pilgrims.* Surely al-Idrisi would have

the building. Apparently no Crusader work on the mosaics had yet begun when he wrote and presumably it was not possible or appropriate to undertake the full redecoration of the Templum Domini much before its consecration in 1141. There would have been considerable interest in putting a visible and public Christian stamp on this dominant and impressive building as

indicated it if he had seen it in 1154, because the exis-

tence issue must There

soon as possible afterward, of course.2! Thus the likeli-

hood is that Melisende’s substantial support made this possible in the years around 1141 and later, whereas neither Baldwin II nor Fulk had shown any interest prior to that date. The beautiful grille that surrounded the rock under

of the cross on the Dome of the Rock was such an among the Moslems. The erection of the cross probably date sometime between 1154 and 1170. is also the altar of St. Nicholas and its inscrip-

tions, cited by Theodorich but not John of Wiirzburg, and dated to 1162.26 These examples, and some of the

later Crusader sculpture that the pilgrims do not men-

tion, make it clear that decorations and inscriptions

were done at various points over a long period of time at the Templum Domini. All of the inscriptions, however, appear to date from the early 1140s. Among the inscriptions cited by John of Wiirzburg and Theodorich are several drawn from biblical sources, a phenomenon noted already in the choice of texts utilized for the program of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It seems apparent that of those inscriptions derived from scripture, some also were portions of liturgical readings. These inscriptions related to the Templum Domini and the

the dome may well have been one of the first elements of the Crusader decoration to have been carried out at the time of the consecration, as we have mentioned in

chapter 6. Pilgrims already started to comment on the

grille about 1150. The Latin mosaic inscriptions would, however, have been much more significant in establish-

ing the Christian identity of this building. John of Wiirzburg, whose account dates about 1170, is the first

to cite some of the mosaic inscriptions, and Theodorich, writing about 1174, also records some of them.22 We need not, however, date their execution so late because

events in the life of the Virgin Mary and Christ,

no other pilgrim writing in any detail since the early

among other holy sites located here, and were especially likely to have been chosen to decorate the inte-

1140s, in particular, Rorgo Fretellus (ca. 1148) and

Muhammed al-Idrisi (1154) might have commented on 251

rior and the exterior with the dedication of the build-

ing in mind.

On the exterior of the Templum Domini the Crusaders installed a long Latin inscription in mosaic that ran around the top of the octagon on the lower level. Drawing heavily on the psalms, these texts in effect reconstruct a “new” psalm in praise of this building as the house of the lord founded on a rock. The texts reported by the two pilgrims in common differ only slightly. We cite both below with abbreviated indications of their biblical source, when known:

First,

Theodorich (who records the texts by numbered faces of the octagon): ONE

appears more reliable because his locations veflect the eight sides of the octagon and John of Wirzburg is missing one section: “Hec est domus Donyin} firmiter edificata,” whereas Theodorich only lacks jhe ending

of one verse: “in saecula saeculorum laux iDunt te,” Furthermore, John of Witirzburg’s sequencine is erratic,

and it appears that he has gotten some of the verses out

of order. Theodorich says these inscriptions are read “secundum solis circuitu.” If we interpret this as mean-

ing clockwise, that is, as the sun moves from east to west on the southern side of the building, it is clear that

John of Wirzburg’s sequence is closer to that of Theodorich than if we read Theodorich’s eight passages in the counterclockwise direction. On the exterior, there is close correspond ence

Pax eterna ab eterno patre sit huic domui. TWO

Templum Domini sanctum est. Dei cultura est. Dei sanctificatio est. (Psalm 64:5 and Ecclesiasticus 1:32)

THREE Hec est domus Domini firmiter edificata. FOUR In domo Domini omnes dicent gloriam. (Psalm 28:9) FIVE Benedicta gloria Domini de loco sancto suo. (Ezekiel 3:2) SIX Beati, qui habitant in domo tua, Domine. (Psalm 83:5) SEVEN Vere Dominus est in loco isto, et ego nesciebam. (Genesis

28:16)

EIGHT Bene fundata est domus Domini supra firmam petram . (Matthew 7: 25, and Breviary for dedication, I Vespers)” John of Wiirzburg transcribed these texts as follow s,

organized by the four main points of the compass:

between the two transcriptions; in the interior there is greater diversity. Indeed it is interesting that they duplicate each other only once in regard to the texts

and decorations from the interior of the Templum

Domini. Again, it is Theodorich who provides a reliable text of the most important mosaic inscriptions in

the drum of the dome. The first text is located just above the arches of the “choir” over the rock: “Domus

mea domus orationis vocabitur, dicit Dominus. In ea

omnis, qui tetit, accipit, et qui querit, invenit, et pulsanti aperietur. Petite, et accipietis, querite, et inveni-

etis” (Isaiah 56:7, Matthew 7:7,8, and 21:13).2° The second text is higher up in the drum: “Audi, Domine,

ymnum

et orationem, quam servus tuus orat coram te,

Domine, ut sint oculi tui aperti, et aures tue intente super domum istam die ac nocte. Respice, Domine, de sanctuario tuo, et de excelso celorum habitaculo. (I

Kings 8:28, Deuteronomy 26:15).30 Both of these pilgrims also refer to other sites within the Templum Domini having inscriptions images as well. It is possible that the most in

ones were done about the time of the dedication, for example, the Presentation of the Virgin, and the Presen-

ON THE WEST ENTRANCE SIDE Pax aeterna ab aeterno Patre sit huic domui.

Benedicta gloria Domini de loco sancto suo.

ON THE SOUTH SIDE Bene fundata est domus Domini supra firmam petram . Beati qui habitant in domo tua, in saecula saecu lorum laud-

abunt te.

ON THE EAST SIDE

tation of Christ, but other less major sites may not yet have been identified with special inscriptions unt!! later for John of Wirzburg and Theodorich to see. [¢ seems

likely in any case that these inscriptions pertai ning to some of the central and traditional commemorations of the Templum Domini would have preceded the altar to

St. Nicholas mentioned earlier, done in 1162.

Vere Dominus est in loco illo, et ego nesciebam. In domo tua, Domine, omnes dicent gloriam.

On the east side of the interior was a stone altar that

marked the spot where Simeon took the bab) Jesus

ON THE NORTH SIDE Templum Domini sanctum est, Dei cultura est, Dei aedificatio est

into his arms. It was marked by an inscription tran-

It is clear that for these inscriptions the two pilgrims report most of the same texts, but in different locations and in different sequences. Theodorich’s transcription

252

scribed by both Theodorich and John of Wiirzburg that said: Hic fuit oblatus rex regum virgine natus , Quo locus ornatur, quo sanctus iure vocatur.

Translate) A double capital in the lower zone of the Bab al-Silsila is related to a single capital from the Mosque anNisa. 4 The lions of the double capital on the Bab al-Sakina are loosely related to the lions of the Danie l capital at the Prison of Christ and more loosely to those on the molding under the Chapel of the Franks on the south transept facade of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. In searching for the artistic origins of the artists involved in the work on the Church of the Ascension and the Qubbat al-Mi*raj, Kiihnel and Enlart found Western, mostly French parallels for these capitals, preferring to think that the Oriental elements found in their motifs had entered the Romane sque in the West before it was translated to the Lati n Kingdom.* Kiihnel has, moreover, surveyed the sculpture in western France and identified Fontevrault as a strong candidate for the stylistic source.6 She has also sketched a plausible historical context for the linkage between fond

272

Plate 8A.9e. Capital from St. Peter in Gallicantu, Jerusalem: detail, griffins, left side. Poitou-Charente Maritime and the Latin Kingdom

through the political ties established by the perso n of

Fulk V, count of Poitou who became King Fulk I, king of Jerusalem. Her historical and art is historical a eS

offer an attractive proposal for the ultimate source

of the training of the sculptors, but they pose difficulties for the dating of the sculpture. It becomes clear from what we know of the I foly Sepulcher, and the sculptural relationships amon g the various monuments mentioned abov e that when we

compare their history with developments in the West, we cannot take a date from sculpture in Europe and simply transfer it to related work in the Latin Kingdom without assessing the precise Crusader artist ic circumstances and the historical context of what was going on in the Holy Land. For example, despite the fact that

substantial work had been done at Fontevrault by the

We can conclude the following about the relative

time Fulk was crowned king with Melisende as his

dating of these monuments:

Ascension — should date before the dedication of the

1 We have proposed in chapter 7 that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, with its major workshops of

queen in 1131, there is no evidence to suggest that the Qubbat a!-Mi*raj — or the capitals on the Church of the

Temp!um Domini in 1141, and in fact they should likely have been done shortly thereafter, in the early or middle

architectural sculpture, dates mainly in the 1140s,

with some of the facade work and some of the mosaics spilling over into the early 1150s. 2 It is likely that the Crusader sculpture for the baptistery on the platform was only done at the time of, or shortly after, the dedication of the Templum Domini from the point of view that the sculpture relates to work at the Holy Sepulcher during the 1140s and 1150s, but mostly the later work. In addition, as stated above, a variety of indirect evidence suggests that the main building would have been dedicated before work would have commenced on a subordi-

1140s. In the absence of direct knowledge that sculptors

came immediately from the West — France or Italy — to

the East, we must assess the historical evidence for the context of that sculptor’s work in the Levant. We cannot assume that the date of stylistically related Romanesque

sculpture in the West should simply be transferred and assigned to similar work in the Near East. Moreover, we must evaluate not only the type but also the style and technique of the capitals in question, to establish their salient differences as well as their important parallels. Only then can we propose a date, however tentative,

nate structure.

without direct documentation or other incontrovertible evidence. In the absence of clear documentation and/or archeological and art historical consensus on the Qubbat al-Mi*raj, we must base our discussion of the dating mainly on the building’s relationship to others in

3 That the capital and abacus sculpture on the Church of the Ascension relates to the capitals on the Crusader baptistery and to other sculpture also suggests a date in the 1140s. It is apparent that major sculptural workshops existed in the 1140s at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and on the Haram and that they were both related to the work that was done on the Church of the Ascension. The sculptural traditions reflected on the Crusader baptistery and associated work from the convent of the Austin canons and the Church of the Ascension, derived from the west of France south of the Loire — Fontevrault and the Charente Maritime. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher reflected a richer array of sources: although there was still some French influence through

and around Jerusalem, either in terms of architecture

or architectural sculpture. We have already seen a number of examples of important architectural sculpture with which the Crusader baptistery capitals can fruitfully be compared. In regard to architectural design, the Crusader domed, octagonal shrine is a type of building that cannot fail to be related to the Dome of the Rock/Templum Domini and the Dome of the Chain/Chapel of St. James. Even if the Church of the Ascension was originally round, as built in the

Byzantine period, the smaller Crusader version was octagonal, which seems to demonstrate the clear impact of the “repatriation” of the Dome of the Rock as the Templum Domini when the First Crusade took

the parallels mentioned above, we have seen that the

one monument originally dedicated to an ascension (that of Mohammed) with another ascension (that of Christ). Similarly, the Qubbat al Mi*raj was associated with the Templum Domini in terms of its domed

Holy Sepulcher also put a new emphasis on figural sculpture, even in some of the interior capitals, and that the major figural sculpture, on the lintels, is associated with Italian traditions from Tuscany and the Abruzzi. These French and Italian artistic influences combined with Roman, Early Christian, Ommayyad, and Byzantine sources to shape the sculpture of the Holy Sepulcher, executed mainly by Frankish and local Christian

octagonal structure. It is, moreover, difficult to believe,

sculptors, no doubt assisted by local masons. The first

without clear evidence to the contrary, that the Crusader baptistery, as a subordinate structure on which site there was already some kind of preexisting

Haram workshop and its related neighbor at the Church of the Ascension was clearly much more limited in its sources and manpower, but equally resourceful in the richness of nonfigural, mostly floriated decoration for the architectural sculpture. The remarkable fact is that there was yet a third major masons’ yard sponsored by the Hospitalers and active in Jerusalem during the 1140s that established a

Jerusalem in 1099, and the unspoken association of

Moslem shrine, would have been built in advance of

the official “reconciliation” of the main building, that is, the Templum Domini, to Christianity. Certainly the lack of reference to the baptistery by Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem in the twelfth century does nothing to contravene a dating after 1141.

similarly independent identity. This is not surprising,

273

of course, because the military orders certainly sought to establish their freedom from the jurisdiction of the patriarch and the king from their very beginnings, and the large sizes of the projects would have necessarily fostered separate masons’ yards.

Jerusalem, it is very difficult to date precise] on their buildings. Again, as with the Chu. Holy Sepulcher, there is little in the way of do tion to indicate when building campaigns wi. way. William of Tyre, however, includes som.

work of the nentaander ignifi-

cant information in his discussion of the Hospitalers in

The Hospital of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem and Related Monuments in the Muristan

Directly south of the Holy Sepulcher was located the

Hospital of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem (see

Map 7, chapter 10). Known today as the Muristan from the Kurdish word for hospital, this area was the home of the Hospitalers, the site of their major pilgrimage hospital in Jerusalem and several churches. Although important foundations were already in existence in this quarter when the Crusaders arrived in 1099 -St. Mary Latin and St. Mary Magdalen, convents for men and women respectively; the Church of St. John the Baptist; and a hospital” — clearly major new building was instigated here in the 1140s as well. The churcwere hes renovated or rebuilt, and hospitals and monasteries as well as markets were constructed. It is difficult to appreciate the architectural importance of this quarter

quarter was in ruins in the 1860s (see Plate 7.1).

Rebuilding by the Germans after 1869 and the Greek s after 1905 has produced the Church of the Redeemer — Die Erléserkirche, as ordered by Kaiser Wilhelm — and the Aftimos market, respectively. Excavations carrie d out in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century by Conrad Schick (Figure 9) are therefore our main source of archeological knowledge about the Crusader phase ofthis major area opposite the Holy Sepulcher in Crusader times along with some recent survey work.” Partly because of the destruction and rebuilding of this part ofthe city and partly becau se of the confusing ipti given in the medieval pilgrims’ accounts, the study of the Hospitaler quarte r and the three i

Book 18, chapters 3-8. William related various problems between ‘):. Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Hospitalers that led Fulcher to seek redress from the pope in the spring of 1155, Thus the following developments occurred shortly

before then, probably in the years from the time of the

Second Crusade — when Fulcher also became patriarch — on, that is, 1146-1155:

The most intolerable wrong of all, . . . was done to the

patriarch and the holy church at Jerusalem. For, before the

very doors of the church itself, they began to erect an edifice far higher and more costly than that church which had been consecrated by the precious blood of our Saviour .... Moreover, whenever the lord patriarch went up to speak to the people, according to custom, from the place where the Saviour of mankind hung for our salvation and thus bought complete redemption of the whole world, they endeav ored to hinder the celebration of the office entrusted to him. With intentional malice they set their many great bells ringing so loudly and persistently that the voice of the patriarch could not rise above the din, nor could the people, in spite of all his efforts hear him. The patriarch often complained to the citizens of the outrageous conduct of the Hospitalers, which was

perfectly obvious. Yet, though many besought them to cease, --- they carried their presumption to such extremes that, in a Spirit of audacious fury, they armed and, breaking into the church beloved of God as into the house of a com: 1 per-

son, hurled forth showers of arrows, as if against 2 den of robbers. These arrows were later collected and ti: toa

bundle, and we ourselves as well as many others hanging from a rope before the place of Calvary

Lord was crucified.2

em e the

churches of St. Mary Latin, St.

la Grande, and St. John the Baptist has been and continues to be very difficult. ing importance of the Hospitalers inthe Latin Kingdom for their services topilisiti sites, as newly important landgrowing military power as more and more castles were turned over to thei r control in the middle years ofthecentury? and despite theimportance of their facilities near the Holy Sepulcher in

asso-

ciated with the Hospitalers, substantial enou gh to

drown out the patriarch, might have been hung.”

Schick located the complex with a building containing

an underground hall eight bays long and four bays wide

in the comer of the quarter that he called the hospital (see Figure 9). He noted that connected with this

274

=

q

: : >: 3

é i

Figure 9.

Hospital of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem: plan (after Schick

1900/Palestine Exploration Fund).

Was a series of other buildings that, “being all erected about the same time, [they] were all according to one

plan and style, massive, with square piers, supporting vaults, and arches. . . . The whole area of the place formed one building, although consisting of various parts and often divided by narrow lanes, containing Some open, but small courts for light and air.”* It is difficult to interpret exactly when the Hospitalers “began to erect an edifice.” Nonetheless the date has to be before 1155 and, given the context of

William’s words, it is likely the construction of the hosPital took place at the time of the Second Crusade, thus

in the mid-1140s, when the need for such facilities was

again greatly in evidence. This dating is corroborated by written evidence of a functioning infirmary from the tule issued under Raymond of Le Puy, Grand Master

of the order, and composed before 1153.” As TS. Miller

characterized it, this document “by affirming customs already in use, reflects conditions as they had been for some years.”” This also corresponds to the time when the Hospitalers were in the process of arming themselves. It was Raymond of Le Puy, who as master of the order “saw the creation of a military wing.” Of the original Crusader buildings very little remains visible today in the Muristan. The main remnants include part of the Church of St. Mary Latin, and crusader masonry (with masons’ marks) in the minaret

and walls of the Mosque al-Omariyya opposite the Holy Sepulcher. In addition, some sculpture has been found; some is still in situ on the north facade of St. Mary Latin/Church of the Redeemer, and in the cloister other fragments are extant, but their find spots and other details have not been reported. Most of these fragments are in the Museum of the Greek Orthodox

Patriarchate. Very few of these remnants can be associated directly with the Hospitalers. Perhaps the bells of the hospital referred to by William of Tyre were hung from a campanile that has now been rebuilt as the minaret of the Omariyya mosque. The lithograph of Englemann published by Enlart (Plate 8A.10) indicates how close the minaret is to

the entrance to the parvis of the Holy Sepulcher and may indicate the remains of some of the hospital behind it.” Otherwise, ironically the most important architectural remains are found in the Church of St. Mary Latin, a Benedictine foundation associated with the Hospitaler hospice at the time of the First Crusade, but from which

the Hospitalers became independent when they were formally organized in 1113. The cloister retains one of the original capitals from this period to which we have referred in our discussion of the Qubbat al-Mi'raj earlier. The north door also survives, with figural sculpture over the main arch and handsome consoles deco-

rating the entablature above (Plate 8A.11a). The main

north door is also decorated with fleshy, thick-leaf capitals, apparently modern restorations. De Vogiié and Enlart describe the north door as having figural sculpture and inscriptions associated with JERUSALEM

the archivolt molding above the outer arch that

consti-

tute the labors of the months. De Vogiié also Provides an engraving indicating the fragment of a figural tympanum no longer extant. In the nineteenth century this

portal was identified as the Prison of St. Peter, which

was reproduced in old photographs by Bonfils show-

ing also how much damage had been done to the

ensemble. By the 1920s the tympanum was gone, but Enlart could still see ten of the labors and many of the

modillons on the entablature above.®!

The figures for January (at the start) and Decem ber

(at the end) have disappeared, but the other labors are enacted by individual (mostly) male or female (two — March and November) figures, standing, seated , or even kneeling.” The following aspects are also appar-

ent: the extant sculpture of the labors of the month is

arranged on the archivolts, with the inscriptions (written radially) indicating the months on the outer face and the figures (placed longitudinally) representing the labors on the interior concave surface, as seen for Sep-

tember and November (Plates 8A.11b and 8A.11c ). No

Tepresentation of the signs of the zodiac seem to have accompanied the labors. The identifiable figures and the Latin inscriptions have been recorded by de Vogiié and Enlart with some discrepancies: de Vogiié is more accurate for the inscriptions, Enlart for the descriptions.* It is evident that the labors represented are generic, closely related to Western twelfth-century cycles in iconography, with no particular attempt to reflect tasks peculiar to the Near East, for example, the olive harvest in the fall. Although there is no proper representation of the zodiac signs, “Sol” and “Luna” appear at the sum-

mit of the archivolt to anchor the labors (Plate 8A.11d),

and the main references to astral signs are found in the

cornice sculpture, including the repetition of a sun and

moon amidst medallions with starlike configurations and other decorative sculpture.

It is interesting to note that zodiac imagery is found

in the East at certain other earlier sites, for example, in

eighth-century frescoes on a dome at Qusayr “Amra in

Jordan, which the Crusaders might well have seen, but further research will have to be done to decide if anything here reflects earlier Eastern iconographic traditions. Finally, the overall ensemble on this north portal

is also reminiscent of western European facade architecture. A deeply splayed round-arch

portal witha

Zodiac on the archivolts surmounted by a cornice alternately carved on corbels and the intermittent frieze is found in central and western France about this time.

Furthermore, Enlart asserts: “le massif qui encadre cette voussure avait, au dessus de la corni che, un étage superieur, soit un clocher barlong ou pluté t une loge

surmontant le portail, a la facon d’Ttal ie.”*+

Plate 8A.10. Jerusalem: Mosque al-Omariyy a: Englemann lithograph (after Enlart).

It is evident that the sculpture at St. Mary Latin is

276

ei

heavily damaged and difficult to assess , but it appears

-

Plate 8A.1la.

Mary

Latin,

Church of St.

Jerusalem:

north door.

Plate 8A.i1b.

Plate 8A.11c. Church of St. Mary Latin, Jerusalem: voussoir details: November.

Church of St. Mary Latin, Jerusalem: voussoir

details: September.

to have a number of connections with projects elsewhere in the city. The carved corbels are related to the sculpted corbels on the exterior base of the crossing dome of the Holy Sepulcher, and to some of the inte-

rior nave and crossing pilaster capitals of St. Anne’s in Jerusalem. The figural carving on the archivolts is very

generally comparable to a voussoir fragment with a standing male figure found in the Muristan and often related to the Hospital (no. 4 in the list below, see Plate 8A.12e). Finally, although the details are now almost impossible to discern, Enlart asserted that the level of

quality for the figural carving was “au-dessous du mediocre,” and compared what was left to a corner

console fragment (no. 5 below, see Plate 8A.12f) in style and proportions.§5 Clearly the sculptural program and configuration of 277

Plate 8A.11d. Church of St. Mary Latin, Jerusalem: voussoir details: Sol/Luna.

the north portal of St. Mary Latin was decidedly more Western in inspiration and much lower in quality compared to the nearby facade of the Holy Sepulcher. It was obviously a much smaller project, probably taken on by a group of sculptors who may have come from either — or both — the Holy Sepulcher and the Hospitaler masons’ yard, apparently for a Benedictine patron with decidedly less cosmopolitan tastes than the patriarch, or the king and queen. What is most striking is the lack of influence that the great south transept facade of the Holy Sepulcher had on this church portal. This may, however, only reflect the relative independence that monastic communities and diocesan churches in the Crusader States sought to maintain from the great pilgrimage shrine churches, even though the patriarch had direct rights at St. Mary Latin, among others.% Finally, it is worth remarking that the range of quality and differences in approach exhibited by these two more or less contemporary projects seems to be an important demonstration of the complexity of Crusader artistic developments in the 1140s and early 1150s. Despite the importance of the figural sculpture in situ on the north door of St. Mary Latin for Crusader developments in sculpture at the midcentury, we cannot fail to realize that this church was not, strictly speaking, part of the Hospitaler complex being built at this time. Thus, to find any figural sculpture more directly associated with the Knights of St. John, we must look among the individual fragments. Indeed several well-known, quite sophisticated works exist whose origins in the Hospitaler complex are ill documented but that have traditionally been associated with certain main buildings over the years: 1 a capital with two scenes: (a) figures of an angel and Zachariah on the left side (Plate 8A.12a),87 (b) a capi-

tal with the image of the Visitation on the right side

(Plate 8A.12b) (said to be from St. Mary la Grande,

now in the Museum of the Greek Orthodox Patria rchate)8s

2 a capital with the image of St. John the Bapti st and a Latin inscription (said to be from the Chur ch of St. Go

John, now in the Museum of the Gree k Orthodox Patriarchate) (Plate 8A.12c)89 a fragment of a frieze, entablature, or arch stone with

the image of a hunter with bow and arro w and an animal (said to come from the Muristan — St. Mary la Grande?, now in the Museum of the Gree k Orthodox Patriarchate) (Plate 8A.12d)%

is

a voussoir with a standing male figure (said to come

from the Muristan, now in the Muse um of the Greek

Orthodox Patriarchate) (Plate 8A.12e)%!

ul

a corner corbel or console with two stan ding male figures (said to be from the Hospital near the church

of St. Mary la Grande, now in the Fran ciscan Con-

vent of the Flagellation) (Plates 8A.12f and 8. | 2g) 6 aseries of large acanthus capitals (said to be :, om St.

Mary la Grande, now distributed among the convent of St. Abraham, the Rockefeller Museum, 2nd the

Museum of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate) (Plate

8A.12h)?

Whereas some of these works are said to be associ-

ated with the Hospitalers, the ties are in fact slim based

on the evidence. Furthermore, of the works attributed to the Muristan, whether said to be associated with the Knights of St. John or not, most have been linked to the

so-called temple atelier of the late twelfth century.% Otherwise only one figural work, the rather modest corner console with two standing male figures alluded to

above, seems to represent the enormous campaign to

build the hospital in the middle years of the twelfth century. This fragment is obviously a curiously inadequate indication of the Hospitaler workshop activity, given William of Tyre’s comment about their building being higher and more costly than the Holy Sepulcher itself. The evidence for the buildings and any decoration of the hospital opposite to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher thus must be based on a critical evaluation of the Hospitaler documents in association with the excavations carried out by C. Schick and examination of the contemporary maps of twelfth-century Jerusalem, because virtually nothing of the original Hospitaler complex survives in situ.95 We recall that all three churches extant in the Muristan — St. Mary Latin, St. Mary la Grande, and the Byzantine Church of the St. John the

Baptist — antedated the arrival of the Crusaders in some aspect. Furthermore, they were all independent of the Hospitalers, the first two being Benedictine convents for men and women. Thus we are posed with the ciestion of where and when the Hospitaler Church of S!. John was built! Apparently nothing of it remains exce;! for a

number of possible capitals and/or voussoirs, no‘ed

ear-

lier. But if almost nothing significant from the !:> pital

and its church is extant, how do we know that i: \portant construction was under way in the 1140s 1153-1155? Should we assume in any case that ihe

pital was austere and lacking in decoration

un

to hos-

is: the

absence of surviving architectural sculpture? It is highly probable from what the documents ‘ll us that the Hospital of the Knights of St. John was enormous and lavishly appointed - as a hospital, along with its functions as a hospice for pilgrims, and probably to a

lesser extent, a place of refuge for the poor and the

aged. Besides William of Tyre’s comments about the size and costliness of the building, the cartularies and later pilgrims’ accounts report that by the second half of the twelfth century more than two thousand persons could be accommodated in separate beds, an impressive number even today.” The details of the care are equally

Plate 8A.12a.

Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

the Muristan: (1) capital (left side) - angel and Zachariah.

Plate 8A.12b.

Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

the Muristan: (1) capital (right side) — Visitation.

Plate 8A.12c.

Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

the Muristan: (2) capital —St.John the Baptist.

Plate 8A.12d.

Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

the Muristan: (3) voussoir/molding fragment — hunter.

279

Plate 8A.12f.

Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

the Muristan: (5) corner console with two standing male

figures, left side.

Plate 8A.12e. excavated

Sculpture reported to have been

in the Muristan:

male figure.

(4) voussoir — standing

Plate 8A.12g.

Sculpture reported to have been exca’

the Muristan: (5) corner console with two standing

figures, right side.

Plate 8A.12h.

Sculpture reported to have been excavated in

the Muristan: (6) Corinthian capital.

280

ressive. The hospital was apparently divided into

rds, thus the building must have had separate halls for different functions, what John of Wurzburg and

of Wiirzburg and Theodorich, that they are referring to the expense of the facilities and care the hospital was

Theodorich refer to as “in various houses” or “how splendidly it [the hospital] is adorned with buildings with many rooms and beds.”*8 The maternity ward, for

designed to give its patients. Furthermore, William of Tyre’s remark about its height probably simply refers to the fact that the campanile of one of its churches was higher than that of the Holy Sepulcher.

1ew babies so the mothers would not roll over on n. We may expect that each ward had its own

other known twelfth-century hospital buildings does not suggest much of a program. Monastic “hospitals,” as at Cluny, or municipal institutions, as at Angers, were

As for artistic decoration, comparative evidence from

chapei, and that the church for such a large hospital was

infirmaries with open-ward great halls, to which a spe-

appropriately important, as were the areas for the storage and processing of food and medicines. Thus the period for building this complex can be further argued on the basis of available resources and

cial chapel was usually associated. Decoration of the great hall, if any existed, was usually confined to the carving on the capitals and bases of the supporting

other known commitments. It is unlikely that the Hos-

focus for decoration, with the possibility of some kind of altarpiece ensemble, stained glass, and liturgical objects. When the great halls began to be subdivided into separate rooms and/or separate wards in the twelfth cen-

columns. The chapel(s) would obviously be more of a

pitalers would have been able to mount such a costly campaign

of construction much before the 1140s

because it was only then that they began to gain significant strength in manpower and wealth. The growth of the Hospitalers was stimulated by new members from the aristocracy such as Robert of Auvergne, the first of his class to join.” Following his example, others joined and with their arrival the Hospitalers enjoyed new financial resources even while the militarization of the order began. Thus the initiation of the workshop to build the hospital coincides with these developments in the Hospitaler order that made the construction possible. Then we have the testimony of William of Tyre and the rule of Raymond of Le Puy, which attest to the hospital and the new prominence of the Hospitalers in

tury, as with the innovative Hospital in Jerusalem, or in Europe, as at Fountains Abbey, no doubt the architecture was more costly because of its complexity but did not

expand the opportunity for artistic embellishment. Thus, we cannot be surprised that the Hospital in Jerusalem has yielded so little sculpture. As for painting, we know that later European hospitals sometimes had remarkable paintings for their chapels. Recall the fifteenth-century Hépital de Beaune for which Rogier van der Weyden painted the famous Last Judgment altarpiece (ca. 1448), or Geertgen tot

twelfth century and fail to represent the hospital at all,

Sint Jans’s and Hans Memling’s paintings for the Hospitalers in Haarlem and Bruges, respectively. However, we have no knowledge of similar commissions for the Hospital of the Knights of St. John in Jerusalem.!° There is every probability that, given the complexity of the hospital, it was built over a number of years. However, it is unlikely that the main campaign of this building stretched much beyond the early 1150s, for the reasons given above.!? We also know from the cartularies that the Hospitalers were indeed committed to other major building ventures in the 1160s as more and more fortifications came into their control, especially Belvoir in the 1160s, for example, and Crac des Chevaliers,

giving exclusive prominence instead to St. Mary Latin

acquired in the 1140s, with major construction in the

and the citadel (Turris David) in the southeast quarter of the city, the Cambrai map locates the hospital together with two churches (Sts. Mary Major and

1170s and later. Thus, despite the paucity of remains from the Muristan that might correspond with this Hospitaler workshop as the third great masons’ yard organized in the 1140s, we cannot doubt that it must have existed. The hospital was an important architectural venue, but it was not apparently a major center for architectural sculpture or very much painting. The Church of St. John that pilgrims mention, apparently attached to the hospital, remains something of a mystery.!%

Jerusalem by the early 1150s, as mentioned above.

Finally we have the evidence, slender though it is, of the contemporary maps. Because most of the important maps, like the accounts of the hospital from the pilgrims John of Wiirzburg and Theodorich, date from the

second half of the century, one must exercise caution in interpreting their evidence for the hospital prior to ca. 1153. Nonetheless their cartographic documentation is important in the absence of standing buildings. Note that in contrast to, for example, the Brussels, the Hague,

and the Paris round maps, which reflect the early

Minor) as a large, composite three-towered structure

immediately south of the Holy Sepulcher.1™ How then should we interpret William of Tyre’s comment that the building was “higher and more costly”

than the Holy Sepulcher itself, and the references by the Pilgrims to its richness and adornment? It is clear from a

Close reading of the pilgrims’ accounts, in particular John

The other great Jerusalem architectural monument

281

that remains mysterious is the Church of St. Mary on Mt. Sion. Located just outside the city walls, St. Mary’s was very large and important. It was known as “the mother of all the churches” from early Christian times, a

church believed to have been founded by the apostles.

evangelist and a large illuminated initial “7 (Plates 8A.13.a and 8A.13b; Color Plate 16). The te»; of the

manuscript was carefully written throughout

Although built long before 1099, when the Crusaders

quasi-Byzantine

began to identify important holy sites in and around

strongly imitating Byzantine models.

Jerusalem, St. Mary’s possessed many. Moreover, as the

in large

golden letters that give it a de luxe quality. The scribe appears to have been northern French work ing ina

technique, and the miniaturist is

There is no calendar in the codex to assist us in plac-

Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Templum Domini achieved new prominence in the 1140s, St. Mary’s was reidentified with certain major events by the few midcentury pilgrims who have left us accounts. Nikulas of

ing it in the developments of the twelfth century in Jerusalem. Two features of the book are, however, strik-

Pvera (ca. 1140) mentions Mt. Sion as the site of the Last

ture of St. John is based on a Byzantine evangelist type, but altered iconographically and rather clumsily drawn (see Plate 8A.13a and Color Plate 16). Buchthal has pointed out the rather meager connections between the

Supper and Pentecost, without mentioning the church. Muhammad al-Idrisi (ca. 1154) specifically praises this church as beautiful and fortified. He refers to its importance for Maundy Thursday - an observance later moved to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher — and for the Last Supper, visitors being shown the very table at which Christ dined with his disciples. Finally, Belard of

ing: Of those codices related to the Melisende Psalter it is the one most distantly linked with it, and the minia-

Ascoli (ca. 1155) refers to St. Mary’s as “the Citadel,”

where pilgrims could visit the “Upper Room.” In this room the Last Supper took place and Christ appeared to his apostles after the Pentecost. In this “citadel” he also says the Virgin Mary died. Despite its obvious importance ecclesiastically and otherwise - in 1141 a church council took place here, and in 1148 King Louis VII of France resided in the monastery here while on the Second Crusade — we know little about its architecture and decoration, in contrast to the holy sites commemorated. Of all these references, the fortifications mentioned by al-Idrisi apparently reflect the most important change at this site. Surprisingly, the Crusaders had done nothing significant to strengthen the walls of this city since 1099, but they did see the merit in fortifying this church — outside the walls — one of several fortified examples we encounter in the Latin Kingdom in the years around the midcentury.1%

Crusader Manuscript Illumination in Jerusalem In contrast to the tremendous outpouring of build ing projects, architectural sculpture, and monumental painting that characterized Jerusalem in the 1140s and early 1150s, we have comparatively less evidence for book painting and metalwork. Only one extant manus cript seems to have been done in the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher, a Gospelbook that is fragmentary but that may have been commissioned by an aristocratic patron.

REA @

Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Ms. lat. 9396, is a curi-

DASOZSOZUES S ;

a

Plate 8A.13a. Gospelbook of St. John from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., Ms. lat. 9396): fol. 1v,

ous but handsome codex that contains only the Gospel of St. John. It begins with a full-page portr ait of the

evangelist portrait of St. John. (Photo: Paris, Bibl. Nationale)

282

but for no known patron. Melisende clearly seems to have had nothing to do with this commission. Several column paintings in the Church of the Nativity may have been done during the period of Melisende’s most active patronage in Jerusalem, to 1152. Although these works have no direct links to work Melisende commissioned, they seem to fall into a

period in which diverse developments in painting are indicated by the dilute Byzantine influence in manuscript illumination in the Gospel of St. John (discussed

earlier, this chapter) and the sophisticated Byzantinestyle mosaic at the Holy Sepulcher (discussed in ch. 7).

The column paintings fall loosely into two groups.17 There are those that appear relatively early in style, particularly in pose, proportions, and what can be seen of their drapery and that seem related to the earliest works on the columns discussed earlier in chapters 5 and 6. I include in this group the figures of Bishop St. Cataldus (Plate 8A.14) and St. Vincent (Plate 8A.15), as

well as the somewhat unusual image of St. Anne Nikopoia (Plate 8A.16). These are the more westernizing examples. There are those that emphasize relatively flat body forms, linear patterns, and stocky proportions, images such as those of St. Stephen (Plate 8A.17), St. Macarius

(Plate 8A.18), and St. Onuphrius

(Plate

8A.19). These are the examples involving local saints and hermit saints. In regard to other artistic work, there can be little doubt that the metalwork found to be so important earPlate 8A.13b.

Gospelbook of St. John from the scriptorium

of the Holy Sepulcher (Paris, B.N., Ms. lat. 9396): fol. 2r,

illuminated initial I. (Photo: Paris, Bibl. Nationale)

ornament

of the framed miniature or the interlace of

the initial “I” and the earlier painters of the Holy Sepulcher scriptorium (see Plate 8A.13b). We might also mention that the drapery conventions articulating the knees, legs, and hems of St. John reflect the handling of the Virgin and Child in the Melisende Psalter (see Plate

6.9n)

ereas the swirling quasi-strap folds on the

lower body and even the head faintly echo the figure of Elijah ai

Bethlehem (see Plates 6.13a-6.13c).

Because of the less successful attempt here by a Western

artist to paint in the Byzantine manner,

because

of the distance of this artist from the more

accompiished earlier products of the atelier such as the Melisende

Psalter, the Angelica-Fitzwilliam sacramen-

tary or the Paris missal, this codex appears to date between those earlier works and the intensely Byzantinizing work to follow after the late 1150s. Likely it dates in the early 1140s as a second-generation work,

Plate 8A.14. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. Cataldus. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Plate 8A.15. h of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. Churc Vincent. (Photo: British Mandate /Israel Antiquities Authority)

‘

ivity, hlel : Plate 84.16. Church of the Nativity, Bethl Painting — St.Anne n Nikopoia. (Photo: British ehem: Mandate colum /TIsrael

Bavaria Authority)

Plate 8A.17. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. Stephen. (Photo: Britis h Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Plate 8A.18.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: colum n

Painting — St. Macarius.

Antiquities Authority)

284

(Photo: British Mandate

/Israel

he wrote before August 1153. He also calls the Holy Sepulcher a church, but he still appears to have seen the “center of the world,” which was in the crossing of the Crusader church, open to the sky, so he seems to have visited after the church was under construction, but

before the crossing was covered. And he refers to the hospital “which is the most magnificent in the whole world.” His account probably dates therefore from ca. 1145 or shortly thereafter. The anonymous Icelandic guide is slightly later because it mentions the convent founded by Melisende at Bethany ca. 1143; it says noth-

ing about the hospital in Jerusalem but describes numerous details of the new configuration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, including its choir and radiating chapels. These details suggest this pilgrim saw the church after its dedication, hence the date ca. 1150." Belard of Ascoli’s account (ca. 1155) probably also reflects the situation in Jerusalem in the mid- to late 1140s. Although he also fails to mention the hospital, he

refers to the various parts of the Holy Sepulcher as “one church” and says that the Gethsemane grotto was “now Plate 8A.19. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. Onuphrius. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel

a church.”"! Finally, Muhammad al-Idrisi (1154) gives a

rather conventional description of Jerusalem. Besides the indications that help us to recognize more precisely when these accounts were written, each report has some special feature worth noting. Nikulas had a very distinctly Nordic frame of reference and he is keen on connecting recent Scandinavian history with that of the Holy Land, not always with complete accuracy. Nonetheless, Kedar and Westergard-Nielsen correctly note that if the images of St. Canute of Denmark and St. Olaf of Norway had existed on the columns in

Antiquities Authority)

lier in Jerusalem must have also continued during these years. The fact is, however, that we have no specific evi-

dence to illustrate what was happening. William of Tyre tells us that the True Cross relic was carried with the king in battle at two important occasions: in 1146-1147 during the campaign in the Hauran, and in 1148 in front of Damascus during the Second Crusade.1° Thus we may suppose that some True Cross reliquaries like the Denkendorf exemplar were purchased and taken home

the Church

of the Nativity at Bethlehem,

Nikulas

would have mentioned them.!!? Besides the details about the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the anonymous Icelandic guide is the first to mention the handsome iron grille the Franks installed around the rock in the Templum Domini — perhaps made possible by the patronage of Melisende."> Belard of Ascoli is the first of these pilgrims to expand our information on Nazareth since Abbot Daniel in the early twelfth century. Belard notes that Nazareth is an archbishopric

with men returning from the Second Crusade, but we

have no specific documentation for this. Outside of Jerusalem, the political and military situation required that attention be paid to needs for fortifications in both the north and the south. It was, however, increasingly

the military orders that dealt with these responsibilities as the king acted as regent for both Antioch and Tripoli in the early 1150s, and he also continued to concern himself with

(since no later than 1128) and links the “Room of our

the encirclement of Ascalon in the south.

Lady” with the place where the angel appeared to her, reflecting new interest in this holy site.'!* Finally, Muhammad al-Idrisi is of greatest interest, perhaps for his report on the Mosque al-Aqgsa and the Dome of the Rock. Even though he acknowledges that they are in Christian hands, he still refers to them by their Islamic names. Nonetheless his reference to the beautiful garden opposite the north door of the Templum Domini with a colonnade of marble, seems to be a rare mention of the cloister of the Austin canons who served there.1!5

Crusader Pilgrims’ Accounts The pilgrims’ accounts that reflect the developments of the 1140s to 1152 are comparatively few and brief. The most interesting of these, the two Icelandic accounts, by Nikulas of Pvera and an anonymous writer, have been dated ca. 1140 to ca. 1150. Abbot Nikulas refers to Ascalon as still in Moslem hands; thus

285

It may seem surprising, on reflection, that, given the large amount of building activity in Jerusalem we have attributed to the 1140s, there is little indication of this in

the pilgrims’ accounts of the period. On the other hand, we should bear in mind that the purpose of these accounts was not to report on the architectural state of the holy city and, furthermore, that the accounts were often based on earlier texts. Thus what indications of change we find are indeed quite significant. Finally, we may note that the various accounts are no longer so standard in the sequencing of their descriptions of Jerusalem, but this change had already started in the “Work on Geography” (1128-1137). Nikulas of Pvera comes to Jerusalem on the Nablus road and then visits

the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and mentions the

hospital, the Tower of David, the Templum Domini,

and the Templum Salomonis before going to the environs. The Icelandic Guide only describes the Holy Sep-

ulcher and, very briefly, the Templum Domini, whereas Muhammad al-Idrisi mentions the gates of the city,

then the Holy Sepulcher, the Mosque al-Aksa [sic], the Dome of the Rock [sic], and selected monuments of the environs. In contrast to these accounts, Belard of Ascoli

reorganizes his presentation, starting with Mt. Sion,

286

then the Templum Domini, the Praetoriu;. Prison, and the Sheep Pool, then the eastern

| eter’s virons,

followed by the Holy Sepulcher. Perhaps thi ration is some indication of the changes under + in the holy city at midcentury, but these changes in likely have to do with liturgical observances and the lentification of the holy sites, not with new arch: ectural developments. At the end of King Fulk’s reign and in the ‘irst ten

years of Baldwin III's reign, we have seen that Jerusalem became a great center of architectural activity stimu-

lated by the strong personality of Queen Melisende, whose influence was at its peak during these years, Her involvement as supporter and patroness of the arts was outstandingly significant because she was so pow-

erful politically and so active; because her intere sts ranged beyond the Latin Church to those of the Ortho-

dox, the Jacobites, and the Armenians; and becau se she focused her attention on many major projects that would have a considerable impact on Crusader art in the future. It is with some amazement therefore that we discover her patronage was sharply curtailed after 1152, her only major Jerusalem commission being the tomb in which she was laid when she died in 1161.

B. Jerusalem and the Latin Kingdom 1152-1163 John the Baptist came, preaching in the desert of Judea... . Then there went out

to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region about the Jordan; and they

were baptized by him in the Jordan.

Matthew 3:1, 5-6

the fortress of Harim following the death of Raymond #246 shed in the history of the Latin Kingkv dom. In 1152 the culmination of King %\ Baldwin III’s rise to power in his Xs, majority, a development that had been Cnr 4 resisted by Melisende, the queen mother, resulted in open civil war. Only a year later, in 1153, once his kingly powers were secure, Baldwin quickly took command and reached the apogee of his reign when Crusader forces finally succeeded in capturing the strategic city of Ascalon on the southern coast. “Most recent histories of the crusades, . . . , devote hardly more than a page to the civil war of 1152 in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and offer little by way of explanation beyond what is to be found in the chronicle of William of Tyre.”! Hans Mayer has argued, howem

of Antioch on June 29, 1149, and in the rebuilding of the

fortifications of Gaza in the spring of 1150 — a castle that was then assigned to the Templars.” The queen’s and the king’s maneuvering for power and control resulted in the establishment of two separate scriptoria in the royal chancery, a nominal sharing of power designed to avoid an open break at that time

A

(1149). But the queen intensified her efforts to secure

power, looking ahead to the confrontation that was bound to occur. Detailed analysis of a charter from 1150 demonstrates how it “emphasizes the leading role of Melisende and reduces the position of Baldwin to a merely nominal one.” In 1150-1151, furthermore,

Melisende worked to establish her own vassals and then to prevent them from going to war when called up by the king. In 1151 she also made her younger son, Amaury, the king’s brother and future successor, count of Jaffa — one of the most important vassals of the kingdom — without Baldwin III’s consent or knowledge.* The confrontation arrived when Baldwin III felt compelled to go on the offensive because of the dire threat Amaury presented to him as a kind of counterking. The occasion for Baldwin III’s move was carefully

ever, that developments leading up to the civil war

started mony years earlier, and the aftermath extended to 1161. | »abling Baldwin III to take sole political control as kive, the outcome of the civil war also had a

direct i: Kingdon Whe: assume.»

» act on artistic developments in the Latin :1 several ways. . ag Fulk died in 1143, Baldwin and Melisende

beques:

~ sis death in 1131. Because Baldwin III was

+ rulership jointly as a result of Baldwin II’s

chosen: Easter, March 30, 1152. Baldwin shrewdly

requested the patriarch of Jerusalem to crown him alone, without his mother, in the Holy Sepulcher on Easter Sunday, a customary “feast day coronation” that would, however, proclaim him sole ruler of the kingdom.5 When the patriarch demurred, not wishing to incur the wrath of Melisende, it was agreed no coronation would take place and neither Baldwin nor the patriarch would appear that day, a decision sure to gain the attention of the populace. But on Easter Mon-

only th. cn, still in his minority, he and his mother were cr ned together, but Melisende took command as queer vant. When Baldwin came into his majority

at age f!ccn, she did not step aside. Not only did she

continue ‘o rule but she buttressed herself politically in spite of Baidwin’s attempts to assert his will and create his own base of power as the military leader of the

Latin Kingdom: in the Hauran campaign in 1147, at the time of the Second Crusade in 1148, in the assault on

287

day Baldwin publicly appeared wearing a crown, thus asserting his power without the patriarch — and without Melisende. As a political demonstration it was apparently every bit as effective as the solemn ceremony might have been.® Events followed swiftly thereafter. The Haute Cour met quickly to discuss this action with Baldwin and Melisende present, and Baldwin forced the issue by demanding that the kingdom be definitively partitioned between them according to Baldwin II’s deathbed wishes. Seeing no other way out, the court agreed: Baldwin chose the territories of Acre and Tyre, Melisende, Jerusalem, Nablus, and Jaffa.

This precarious state of affairs lasted only briefly. Realizing the impossibility of a divided realm, Baldwin seized the initiative again and moved immediately to attack and capture the Castle of Mirabel — a few miles northeast of Lydda and east of Jaffa — where Melisende’s constable, Manasses, was stationed.7 Melisende mean-

while moved her household from Nablus to Jerusalem.

When she learned that Baldwin had subsequently captured Nablus and was marching on Jerusalem, she ensconced herself and her loyal retainers in the royal residence of the citadel, the stronghold of Jerusalem identified by the Tower of David (Plate 8B.1).8 Despite the patriarch’s plea to abandon this course of action, Baldwin was resolved to remove his mother from power by force if necessary. With the cooperation of the citizens of Jerusalem, Baldwin laid siege to the Tower of David. In a matter of days Melisende agreed to a settlement: Accepting to live in Nablus, the queen relinquished political control of Jerusalem and the rest of her holdings to the king. The conflict was over in less

than three weeks, between March 31, Easter Monday,

and April 20, 1152.° For the political and military survival of the Latin Kingdom, it was important that such serious

internecine struggles not occur. Now that this one was

over, Baldwin III moved rapidly to establish his lead-

ership and control and to maintain the strength of the kingdom against outside threats. Shortly after April 1152, the king went north to hold an assembly in

advantageous one for Constance to take place. Disaster struck immediately following the assembly, when Count Raymond II of Tripoli was assassinated, probably in early June 1152." However, Tortosa was quickly

retaken and given, with Hodierna’s consent, to the Templars.'2 Most important, King Baldwin II] established himself unmistakably as the king of Jerusalem,

exercising his protectorate over Tripoli and Antioch as his predecessors had done.'3 After this political show of command in the north, Baldwin III returned to Jerusalem to contemplate his

next important objective, the conquest of Ascalon.

Since the time of the First Crusade, Ascalon had

loomed as the major fortified coastal city in the south of the kingdom from which the Egyptians could threaten Jerusalem.

Baldwin

III was

convinced

of

Ascalon’s vulnerability because of the recent turmoil in the Cairo caliphate. The significance of the siege of Ascalon we cannot doubt. Baldwin III devoted his full resources to it from January 25 to August 22, 1153. William of Tyre records, moreover, that “the king and patriarch with the other nobles of the realm, . . . accompanied by the life-giving and venerated sign of the Cross of the Lord,” encamped there in January, and that in the face of adversity during the siege, when a council took place in the royal tent, “the king, . . . placed before them the Life-giving cross” for inspiration and strength. Finally, when the city had surrendered, “the king and patriarch, accompanied by the other princes of the realm and the prelates of the church, .. . entered the city with hymns

and spiritual songs, led by the Cross of the Lord. The

Cross was borne into the principal chapel . . . later consecrated in honor of the apostle Paul.”15 On no other campaign does William of Tyre refer to the relic of the True Cross three times.!6 That it was a great victory, William of Tyre’s own words explain: “For fifty years and more after the Lord had given the rest of the Land of Promise into the hands of the Christian people, Ascalon had resisted all our attempts and shown itself a formidable rival to us.” The capture of the city was

“an arduous and almost impossible feat, for Ascalon was well defended by walls and barbicans, towers and embankments, and equipped with an i: dible

Tripoli, in aid of Count Raymond II, who was threat-

ened by Nureddin’s capture of Tortosa that spring.

Plans were made to retake Tortosa, and efforts were

amount of arms and provisions. In addition, it had a large population well trained and thoroughly versed in

made to induce Constance of Antioch to marry, so to end her regency that had lasted since the death of Raymond of Antioch in 1149 and thus resolve the Byzantine claims of Manuel Comnenus on the city. Melisende, who had also come north “privately,” sought to patch up the marriage of Raymond II and his wife Hodierna.1° This marriage was not to last, nor was a politically

the practice of arms. In fact, from the very beginning of the siege even unto the end the number of defenders was double that of the besieging host.”17 So great was the acclaim of this victory that “on a column in the cathedral of Barletta, the port that had seen so many crusaders depart, an inscription proudly records the

taking of Ascalon.’”18

288

a

oy,.

Plate 8B.1.

-

y

=

z

x=

ae pase Sts

Jerusalem: citadel with the Tower of David. (Photo: Matson Archive, by

courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Crusader Coinage in Jerusalem Within little over a year of his takeover of royal power in the kingdom at the Tower of David in Jerusalem, Baldwin III had achieved a spectacular victory at Ascalon in the sign of the True Cross. With his mother safely relegated to her residency in Nablus, how would the king symbolize his reign in the Latin Kingdom? He did this by striking a new billon denier. It is well known that the two most extensive series of royal billon deniers minted in the Latin Kingdom were struck in the names of Baldvinvs and Amalricvs.9 For the coins of Baldwin, the question obviously is, which king? The choice of the Tower of David as the reverse type on the “Baldwin” coin strongly reinforces the argument that it was Baldwin III (Plate 8B.2; Color Plate 23). What better symbol could he have used to

Plate 8B.2. Billon denier of Jerusalem: Baldwin II “Tower of David.” (Photo: University of Wisconsin Press)

In assessing the timing and impact of this coinage, it should not be overlooked that this was the first regular Jerusalem denier issued in major quantities by the rulers of the Latin Kingdom that carried the king’s name. The notion advanced by Metcalf that there were two mints issuing these coins, one in Acre and the other one in Tyre, probably in chronological succession, also corresponds to the holdings of Baldwin III from the 1152 partition mentioned earlier. The large number of these coins is well known, and Metcalf estimates that they were struck from more than a thousand pairs of dies.2! Although we have no evidence from the coins themselves to help us define a date at which the first

bring the royal presence or his recent personal political

ascendency to the minds of the populace on the reverse, in combination with the proclamation “REX BALDUINUS” on the obverse?20

289

issues were struck, historical circumstances suggest that we should consider the period after Baldwin’s assembly at Tripoli and the beginning of the siege of Ascalon, from July 1152 to January 1153, as the likely time. Perhaps some of the first coins issued were used to finance the assault on Ascalon. We may hope for the archeological evidence of additional sealed hoards to help us assess this hypothesis.” The new coin stands out especially because the royal seal effectively remained the same traditional type as that initiated by King Baldwin I: The king is enthroned with his regalia on the obverse and the architectural symbols of the city of Jerusalem appear on the reverse. Only slight modifications of iconography were made on the reverse, notable among which was the introduction of the oculus on the top of the dome of the Holy Sepulcher.?? By contrast, however, the coin introduced

a whole new rendering of the Tower of David, emphasizing the strength of its fortifications. The new coin stands out also because of its relationship to Western coinage. Whereas the denier type is clearly modeled on French royal and seigneurial coins with the equal-armed cross and enclosing inscriptions on the obverse and the reverse, the introduction of the archi-

tectural image is a Crusader innovation. Among western European coins only those of Germany exhibit the regu-

lar use of architectural motifs, but none is comparable to

the Tower of David type, and there is no reason to connect the Jerusalem deniers with German coinage. Among

Byzantine coins, architectural motifs are virtually

unknown, and there are certainly none among the coins of the Comnenus dynasty. Thus the royal seal seems to have been an important model in its distinctive use of

in 1161, therefore, we must look, with one important

exception in Jerusalem, to Nablus for any possible works

of art sponsored by the queen mother.

Reliquaries of the True Cross The king’s efforts to associate himself with the relic of the True Cross at the siege of Ascalon refocuses our attention on this ensign of the Latin Kingdom. We have already remarked how references to the True Cross were frequent in William of Tyre’s History of the first quarter of the century; this intense interest was followed by material evidence for the cult through the identification

of the first extant reliquaries, produced after 1125. Baldwin IIL, in his role as military leader, again revives interest in the Holy Cross even before 1152, and after Ascalon in 1153 William of Tyre reports that the king had the cross carried by Peter, archbishop of Tyre, during a cam-

paign against Nureddin in the Galilee in 1158 (Book 18,

chapter 21). We may wonder to what extent the prominence given the relic by the king stimulated further interest in the products of the goldsmiths of Jerusalem in the vicinity of the Holy Sepulcher. Having seen that production of True Cross reliquaries was under way in Jerusalem after ca. 1125, we also noted that goldsmiths were frequently found witnessing charters in the 1130s, indications of a thriving industry with settlers living in the environs of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. We may also recall that later charters exist, which demonstrate a certain continuity in this community of artists. Documents from the years 1143, 1156, and 1160, name goldsmiths as witnesses: namely,

architecture, which the king selected for the coin and the

“Fulcus aurifex” in 1143, “Jordanus, filius Petri auri-

designer then rendered in a linear, abstract image. It is equally important to note the king’s new artistic presence by means of his coinage as it is to mark the disappearance of Melisende as a major artistic patron

fabri” in 1156, and “Pisellus” and “Uldretus” in 1160.26 Demand for True Cross reliquaries was produced

not only by the commissions of pilgrims visiting

Jerusalem but by orders from the king, patriarch, and

in Jerusalem after June 1152. The special significance of

local clergy, and by men and women of means in the

Melisende’s support of the church has been duly noted and, by extension, her role as patroness of ecclesiastical art to this point.

Latin Kingdom desiring gifts to send to Europe.” That

the production of True Cross reliquaries continued in the 1150s is attested by a fourth and fifth example, one now in the Musée St. Jean, Angers, and the other in the Benedictine Abbey of Scheyern in Bavaria. The Angers cross is a handsome specimen of the type we have seen earlier.8 It has filigree, gemstones, and antique intaglios decorating the front where the relic was displayed in a single, cross-framed opening. The back of the cross has the familiar stamped decoration with floral motifs in medallions linked by means of a vine-scroll motif. Its significance here is that it was given in 1158 to a chapel in honor of the Holy Cross by

She had always behaved lavishly toward the Church, to such an extent that her gifts soon became legendary. Because of these gifts, she was considered a devoutly religious person, which she may have been. But she also was a shrewd politician and her gifts to the Church must be viewed as an attempt to buy its political support.24

Now, as part of her “surrender” at the Tower of David, she agreed “to abstain from politics and to act in Nablus only as any other city lord would. Indeed, it can be proved that the influence she had in other parts of the kingdom was minimal.”> From June 1152 until her death

Foulques de Cleers and his son, Geoffroi. Thus it must

date to 1158 or shortly before and demonstrates that 290

this basic

type of Jerusalem reliquary cross continued

to be mack The Scheyern reliquary was sent West by Patriarch Fulcher in the hands of Konrad, a canon of the Holy Sepulcher, sometime in the years 1155-1157. The actual object seen today is eighteenth-century, but an engrav-

ing exists

show ing its open side with the quatrefoils, fili-

gree, and thin stone mounts familiar from the earlier

Denkendorf, Kaisheim, and Barletta reliquaries (Plate Furthermore, the case of the cross on the other

8B.3a).

side exhibits a “quadratic” stamped foliate design that is very closely related to the work found on the rear of the Barletta cross, as Meurer has pointed out (Plate 8B.3b).2 The problem is that despite the similarity in design, the size of the Scheyern stamped design is significantly larger (31 mm wide) when compared to the Barletta

example (15 mm wide).

The connecting link in this relationship is a third reliquary, a portable altar now in the cathedral of Agrigento

(Plate 8B.4a-d).*! The Agrigento altar is significantly different from the Jerusalem reliquaries already cited, and

in its current configuration it is probably best understood as the work of a Sicilian workshop from the second half of the twelfth century.*? Parts of its decoration, however, have been assembled from what must have

Plate 8B.3b.

Reliquary of the True Cross — Scheyern: case.

been a Jerusalem True Cross reliquary. On the top surface of the portable altar, below the left-corner enamel of an angel, is attached a cut-out “quadratic” stamped foli-

size as found on the Scheyern case (see Plate 8B.4d).°

ate element with exactly the same design and the same

Furthermore, the lower side of the portable altar is decorated with the fragment of a double cross design with the familiar quatrefoils, medallions, and cross slit open-

ings — this time done in stamped metal technique — characteristics we have come to identify with the Jerusalem type of reliquary (see Plate 8B.4b).+ Two aspects of these fragments concern us. First,

even if the stamped foliate design is comparable in every respect to that on the Scheyern cross case, is the double-cross fragment on the bottom of the portable altar from the same reliquary, and did these two fragments originally come from the same source? Given the traffic in metalwork panels that abound on composite works of this sort throughout the middle ages, we cannot automatically assume that both fragments belonged to the same original object. However, it is likely they did. It stands to reason that the stampedfoliate-design fragment would have little meaning, sig-

nificance, or little justification as the sole surviving ornamental interstitial element on the top of the altar in the midst of the program of enamel plaques without the True Cross component to “explain” its presence. Second, an additional element on this True Cross

Plate 8B.3a.

fragment is significant (see Plate 8B.4b). At the bottom of the vertical shaft is the representation of the Holy

Reliquary of the True Cross — Scheyern:

engraving.

291

292

Omir

Es

we.

oF

e oa Size? a

Ver

oY’

eS,

Portable altar,

stamped design.

ov

3

258

CEOR|

v4

ye 0

> ~ 0)

@

a

Plate 8B.4.

Sepulcher, am uch more developed version than is seen on the Kaisheim reliquary. The sepulcher is identified by an arched enclosure surmounted by an equal-armed cross with a large lamp hanging over a rectang ular

form (the sepulcher), with three holes in its side. As a

design, the idea is closely tied to the image of the Holy Sepulcher f und on the Hague map, which includes the cross, the arch, and the rectangular sepulcher with

the three holes in the side. This iconographic conception is important because, as a motif joined with the True Cross configuration, it enables us to group several other objects with Jerusalem metalwork production at this time, not all of which are reliquaries. Meurer has demonstrated this linkage, using the reliquaries — comparing the Kaisheim and Agrigento renderings of the Holy Sepulcher to examples found on other works. For instance, the reliquary now in the treasury of Ste. Foi at Conques (Plate 8B.5) exhibits an image of the sepulcher comparable to that on the Kaisheim

cross; similarly, the reliquary in the Louvre in Paris (Plates 8B.6a and 8B.6b) and the cross from the Abbey of Carboeiro that is now in the cathedral treasury of Santi-

ago da Compostella (Plates 8B.7a and 8B.7b) both contain motifs comparable to those of the Agrigento cross

Plate 8B.6.

an 8B.5.

Reliquary of the True Cross, Ste. Foi, Conques:

Reliquary of the True Cross, Louvre, Paris: (a)

front, cross in case; (b) back of cross. (Photo: Agence

photographique, Réunion des Musées Nationaux)

nt.

293

Plate 8B.7a. Reliquary of the True Cross, Abbey of Carboeiro, now in Santiago da Compostela: front.

fragment. We can also turn to other examples in smallscale sculpture to find interest in representations of the Holy Sepulcher that are related to this Jerusalem cult of the True Cross by the Crusaders. It is the Hospitalers who manifested this specif ic association of the True Cross with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at the earliest moment, on the seals of the second Grand Master of the order, Raymond of Le Puy. Raymond served from 1118 until his death ca. 1158-1160, and we have two seals, one from as early as

1134, that demonstrate this point.*”7 On the obverse, Raymond at the left kneels to venerate the True Cross in front of him. On the reverse, the Holy Sepul cher with arch and lamp, shelters a gisant below . Clearly the Hospitaler version of this iconography is somewhat different in specifics from the examples we are considering,* but the basic pairing is unmis takably present.

Plate 8B.7b. Reliquary of the True Cross; Abbey of Carboeiro, now in Santiago da Compostela: back.

significant that this tradition continues here, but the specific iconography on the Crusader example is unrela ted and quite distinctive and dates after ca. 1154. On the front of this Berlin flask (see Plate 8B.8a) we find an image of the Church of the Holy Sepul cher with three components: in the center is the Anast asis rotunda open at the top with an arched enclo sure below in which a nimbed gisant appears on a sepulcher with three holes in the side underneath a single

hanging lamp; to the left is a curved dome crowned

with a cross and covering architecture below, which is attached to the central element and which also featur es an opening with a hanging lamp; and to the right is a three-story tower with a pointed roof over archit ecture, which is also attached to the central element and which also includes an arched opening with a hanging lamp. This ensemble is clearly a new representation of the

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, different from the ren-

dering on the seal or earlier coins, that reflec ts the contemporary configuration following its dedica tion (1149) and the completion of the campanile (ca. 1154).

Pilgrims’ Ampullae in Jerusalem

K6tzsche referred to a fourteenth-century drawi ng in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Urb. lat. 1362,

Related to both the reliquaries and the Hospi taler seals is a pilgrim’s flask (Plate 8B.8) now in Berlin.? A kind of lead container for holy oil that ranke d among the least expensive souvenirs a pilgrim could find, this one measures only 6 cm x 4.6 cm and thus is comparable to the smallest of the famous Monza ampu llae from ca. 600." It is well known that the Holy Sepul cher was one of the most important motifs on the early flasks, and it is

fol. lv, in order to make this point, but there are more relevant contemporary images to consider. On the Cambrai map (ca. 1150s) we find the Church of the Holy Sepulcher depicted in precisely the same tripar-

tite manner as on the flask, albeit from a differ ent point

of view.*! The flask features the women confronting the angel

294

Plate 8B.8. Ampulla from the Holy Sepulcher (1), now in Berlin: (a) front, Holy Sepulcher; (b) back, Holy Women at the Sepulcher. (Photos: Museum fiir Spatantike und Byzantinische Kunst — Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Inv.- Nr. 25/73)

at the tomb on its other side (see Plate 8B.8b), an iconography obviously equally attuned thematically to the Holy Sepulcher, which balances the more literal rendering of the church on the reverse. Clearly the artist is following Western iconographic canons in depicting three women, in accordance with the

indicate that the flask of oil came from the Golgotha chapel in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Another small flask in Berlin has been identified as Crusader, which is also decorated on its two sides, this

time with representations of the Crucifixion and the Anastasis (Plate 8B.9).* These images are tied no less closely to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by means of

Gospel of St. Mark, but the gesture of holding out an

ointment jar by the lead figure is distinctive. The flask ostensibly follows the middle-Byzantine rendering of this image in general, but with the tomb isolated to the right side, as seen in the miniature of the Melisende Psalter (see Plate 6.8s), and is not related to

the True Cross insignia on the neck of the container, and

by their iconography, but in ways that differ from the first flask. The Crucifixion (see Plate 8B.9a) features what

at first glance seems to be a typically Western medieval four-nail configuration. On close inspection, however, the figure of Christ appears to be wearing some kind of long clothing — not the conventional loin cloth — because of the linear elements curving across his chest. Could this be a colobium? The colobium, a full-length garment, is associated with images of the Crucifixion in Palestine as early as the Rabula Gospels of 586 and the Sancta Sanctorum box lid. Its appearance here in combination with the four-nail type would suggest that perhaps we see a rare case of the vestiges of the Early Christian image reappearing in the twelfth century. Second, the placement of Longinus and Stephaton, symbolically indicated by a spear standing next to St. John and by a sponge on a pole standing next to the Virgin, is “reversed” on this ampulla, with Longinus on the right

the earlier patriarchal seal of William I.2 The combination of the iconography of the Holy Sepulcher with that of the True Cross is achieved by placement of the double-armed

cross above both

scenes on the neck of the container, just below a band of decoration near the opening at the top. The True Cross imagery is unmistakable, but the specific formulation here is slightly changed from what we have seen before. The double-armed cross is joined to a vinescroll design, which suggests the idea of the cross as the tree of life. This is a version of the True Cross known particularly from Byzantine art, and some of its most beautiful examples date from the tenth century.

Here it is clearly an identifying mark, perhaps meant to

295

Plate 8B.9._

Ampulla from the Holy Sepulcher (2), now in Berlin

: (a) front, Crucifixion; (b) back, Anastasis.(Photos: Museum fiir Spatantike und Byzantinische Kunst — Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preuss ischer Kulturbesitz, Inv.-Nr. 24/73)

and Stephaton on the left. This reversal of the standard iconography, as seen in the Rabula Gospe ls and the painted box lid, is noted by Theodorich. Thus this imagery on a pilgrim’s souvenir seems to reflec t directly the monumental icon of the Crucifixion at the holy site.45 The Anastasis (see Plate 8B.9b) is of cours e the title icon

of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher from earlier times. Before the Crusaders rebuilt the church, it was by the rotunda of the Anastasis, with its large mosai c in the east-

erm apse, that the site was identified. On that account, the

appearance of this image can be no surpr ise, but the Anastasis did not appear on ampullae befor e the twelfth century.# We have already discussed the relationship of the Anastasis iconography of the mosaic, the Melisende Psalter miniature with its pair of angels, probably reflecting the imagery of the mosaic, and the new seal of Patriarch Fulcher, which was very likely struck with the mosaic in its new location as an inspi ration.” Of these three possibilities it is clearly the new seal image of Patri-

arch Fulcher (1146-1157) that offers the closest parallels,

visually and chronologically,8 with one significant alteration. The True Cross that Christ holds on the Berlin flask differs from that on the seal and attra cts the viewer’s attention. Not only is it truncated so that the lower part beneath the hand of Jesus — which regul arly appears in the standard Byzantine iconography*® — is gone, but also its simplified form directly links it with the True Cross

insignia represented above the figure of Christ . Thus it appears that both of the Berlin flasks were done for the

same holy shrine, and both show a simila r blend of inno-

vative and traditional iconography reflecting the influ-

ence of western European, Byzantine, and Palestinian loca

sancta imagery. In terms of dating, a terminus post quem of ca. 1154 has already been suggested for these flasks on the basis of the representation of the Holy Sepulcher with its campanile completed. We can make other observa tions that may give further Precision to Kétzsche’s aitribution to the years 1150 to 1187 in the second half of the twelfth century.5! The appearance of the True Cross on these flasks in Byzantine style and icono graphy, simple as it is, may be associated with an intensification of

Byzantine influence that probably acco mpanied the arrival of Princess Theodora in Jerusalem and her mar-

riage to King Baldwin II in 1158.22 Although there is nothing to suggest that these flasks were specially made to commemorate that happy event in the life of

the kingdom, it is possible they were made shortly afterward. They certainly seem to reflect a newly strengthened interest in Byzantine culture, an interest that would gain significant momentum in the subse-

quent reign of King Amaury I and that we can document particularly in the Painting of the 1160s.53

Because of the Poor condition of these flasks , it is

296

difficult to say much about their style. Obviously the formal characteristics feature linear elements; the fig-

ures are

stocky and often lively in pose; and the com-

positions tend to be additive, symmetrical, and cen-

tralized,

with occasional off-balance or diagonal

which accords reasonably well with the evidence of the True Cross reliquaries we have discussed and the seals and coins dealt with elsewhere. Furthermore, the suggestion made by K6tzsche that these flasks may have been made in the same workshop as those

destabilizing formal accents. From a Western perspec-

of the seal dies, should

with Romanesque

include the reliquaries.** As Meurer has pointed out, the reliquaries are also relatively inexpensive, assem-

tive these

are conservative features associated mainly

form. From the perspective of the

Crusader States these are features that are found widely in the mid—twelfth century in different smallscale media. We see them in the Baldwin coins, in the variations of the rendering of the Tower of David,

probably be expanded

to

bly-line versions of this type of object, but all of these

objects — flasks, seals, and reliquaries — belong to the minute sculptural world of the goldsmith.

and, to a lesser extent, in the few seals of Fulcher and Amaury that are available for comparison. Although we are clearly dealing here with a limited medium -

small-scale metalwork sculpture — the formal charac-

The Reliquary from the Church of St. John the Baptist

teristics would not encourage us to see the artist as progressive in style. Rather we would associate this kind of work with a conservative artist of Western background who, like Basil in the Melisende Psalter,

A final example of work by Crusader goldsmiths in Jerusalem that may date to the 1150s is currently found in the Museum of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate. Compared to the various objects discussed above, it is the

is conversant with local Byzantine traditions and could be responsive, especially in terms of iconography, to the special wishes of patrons in Jerusalem. These considerations lead us to suppose that a date no later than 1160 would be appropriate for the flasks,

most complex, the least well documented, and one of the

most interesting. It is a reliquary “en forme de mitre en cristal” found in the crypt of the Church of St. John the Baptist associated with the Hospital of the Knights of St. John (Plates 8B.10a—8B.10c).*> It contains multiple relics,

Plate

8B.10a.

Reliquary

from the Church of St. John

the Baptist, now in the Greek Orthodox patriarchate: front. (Photo: Savignac, Ecole Biblique)

Plate 8B.10b. R; ‘tiguary fr om the Church of S; Jo hn the

Baptist, now

in the Greek

Orthodox patriarc hate: back,

(Photo:

Biblique)

Savignac

Ecole

including those of the True Cross, Sts. John the

Ba ptist and Peter, the other eleven apostles, and Sts. Mark, Lawrence, Vitus, Stephen and Oswald. The extant

inscriptions identifying these relics are all in Latin.

The appearance of relics of the True Cross on the front of this teliquary (see Plat e 8B.10a) immediately associates this lavish work with the Crusader goldsmiths’ establishment disc ussed above, esp scially because the sha

pe of the two vessels that hold the relics is the familiar double-barre d cross.56 Between this extraordinary configura tion of two crosses, ther e are rectangular containers with small relics of St. John the Baptist to the left and St. Pete r to the right, as specified by the inscriptions. The association of these saints immediately suggests some kin d of patronage by the Hospitalers, with St. John the Baptist being the patron saint of the order, and St. Pete r possibly reflecting the direct Papal jurisdic

sa

Plate 8B.10c. Baptist, now

tion Over the order establis hed in

the 1150s.57

:

The back of the Pla

que (see Plate 8B.10b) is con fig—_ured in the manner of superi mposed arcades with fifteen openin

Reliquary from the Church of St. John the in the Greek Orthodox Patria rchate: side.

(Photo: Savignac, Ecole Biblique )

gs,

a type of multiple-relic vessel common in the thirteenth century.° * Here the assemblage of

298

relics not only evokes the same devotional spirit as the icons of the saints on the columns of the Church of the Nativity in B ‘thlehem, but the specific choices seem to

give us a further indication about the patron. We note also that

the orthographic use of the “w” in “ewang-

feliJs[te]” (‘or St. Mark) and “Oswaldi” is probably a northern European trait. Recall that this letter appears also in Bethlehem over the kneeling pilgrim below the

image of the Virgin and Child Glykophilousa.* Just as the prominence given to Sts. John the Baptist and Peter on the front of the reliquary seems to denote special Hospitaler patronage, the five nonapostle saints on the back are provocative, if not easily associated

with some particular individual. The associations of

these five are interesting. St. Mark is obviously closely associated with Venice, St. Vitus with Italy and Ger-

many, St. Lawrence with Rome, St. Stephen with Jerusalem, and St. Oswald with England. It is the last of these, Oswald, the Anglo-Saxon king of Northumbria in the seventh century, who has been singled out for special mention, as perhaps indicating an English patron.® He is arguably the only one of this group venerated as a proto-Crusader in Europe, but whether we should associate his name with an English or Saxon patron, which is possible, is unclear.*

Thus the evidence for this remarkable object is partly circumstantial, partly quite direct. We can be relatively certain the reliquary was made in Jerusalem for the Church of St. John the Baptist. It is likely to have been commissioned by a Hospitaler, who may have been English. The inscriptions indicate it should be dated sometime after 1130 on paleographical grounds, but a date ca. 1155-1160 is suggested by HospitalerPapal developments in the mid-1150s and the fact that the first Hospitaler priories in England were established in the 1140s. What is the function of this object? The unusual miter shape is quite distinctive, and no other Crusader reliquary is like it. Despite its small size, perhaps it was meant to be a reliquary in the shape of an altarpiece, one that could be displayed on an altar for special devotions, and for the liturgy on the days of special commemorations related to the relics. One thinks of larger altarpieces as models for this overall shape, such as the Lisbjerg retable of ca. 1140. It is in any case an important and unique manifestation of the cult of the True Cross probably associated with the Hospitalers after about 1155. It also provides evidence for the existence of important relics other than those of the True Cross in the Holy Land, although few such extant reliquaries have been identified from the Latin East during

this period. These examples of kleinkunst are significant for art in

the Latin Kingdom during the third quarter of the twelfth century because they enable us to see their variety; the particularity of their patronage and production in the Crusader period; and their ties, direct or indirect, to the larger tradition of pilgrimage art in the Holy Land. In regard to the latter we may reflect on Weitzmann’s observations about /oca sancta pictures. He makes three points: 1 “each locus sanctus allows of the creation of more than one archetype and . . . each version may emphasize different aspects of the locality,” 2 “the influence of the loca sancta pictures spread into different parts of the Christian world, thus providing evidence that Palestine played a significant role in the formation and dissemination of Christian iconography, in which the topographical elements are stressed,” ow

“the loca sancta pictures existed in a wide variety of media.”

It appears these examples demonstrate mutatis mutandis, that the same characteristics hold for the pilgrimage art of the Crusaders here in the decade of the 1150s. While these developments were going on in Jerusalem, Ascalon was integrated into the realm. The great mosque was consecrated as the Cathedral of St. Paul,

and a canon of the Holy Sepulcher, Absalom, became the new bishop.® Moreover the county of Ascalon was added to that of Jaffa, which had been restored to

Amaury, and together they became the largest singlecrown fief.% In view of this ecclesiastical and political activity at Ascalon and the growing royal focus of attention on the south, it is surprising that we have such meager evidence about Crusader artistic activity in the city after 1153 despite its various destructions. Recent excavations have yielded surprisingly little inside the city from the Crusader period except some Byzantine fresco fragments of standing church fathers with equal-armed crosses on their pallia in a minor church near the walls by the Jerusalem gate (Plates 8B.11a and 8B.11b).*7

The Northern Crusader States In the north, meanwhile, King Baldwin III was forced

to monitor the menace of Nureddin on the eastern frontier.6S After taking Damascus in April 1154, Nureddin appeared poised as a serious threat to the Latin Kingdom, but his own attention was fixed on the Seljuk claims to the former county of Edessa. Furthermore, a series of earthquakes in Syria in the autumn of 1156 forced him and the Franks to shore up the walls of dam-

Plate 8B.11.

Ascalon, churc

h decorated in the Crusader period: (a) Dado, painted decoration; (b) equal-armed crosses, fragmentar y painted remains. (Photos: Courtesy of Lawrence Stager of the Leon Levy Exped ition to Ashkelon)

aged fortifications the following spring. Then a raid by Baldwin in early 1157 provoked Nureddin to battle and breached their negotiated truce. Nureddin responded by attacking Banyas and inflicting dama ge on the town’s

defenses. When the king arrived to relieve his const

able, who held the citadel, Nureddin with drew and allowed him to repair the walls of the town. But when Baldwin III marched out to return home, Nureddin attacked, inflict-

Nureddin fell ill and was inactive during a long convalescence. Baldwin, accompanied by the True Cross relic in the hands of the archbishop of Tyre, as mentioned

above, was able to defeat him on his return

to the battlefield in July 1158. Nearly a year later, in the spring of 1159, Nureddin negotiated a truc e with the Byzantine emperor Manuel, which resulted in the telease of thousands of prisoners taken during the Second Crusade and some captured later, including Bertrand of Blancfort, Grand Master of the Templars. Thereafter Nureddin was Preoccupied by the Seljuks to the north and Fatimid concerns in Egypt for a time. In the latter years of his reign, Baldwin III was drawn increasingly into the affairs of Antioch by the actions of Princess Constance, Aimery the Patriarch, Prince Renaud de Chatillon, and Emperor Manuel ,” During the siege of Ascalon, Constance of Antioch made the fateful decision to marry the soldier-adventurer Renaud de Chatillon, who had come east on the Sec ond Crusade and stayed to seek his fortune. He immediate ly sought to win the recognition of Manuel, and remune ration as a kind of mercenary, by driving the Armenians out of Alexandretta and

promptly gave the land to the Templars, thus beginning a

relationship that would have dire cons equences for the Latin Kingdom in 1187. The Templars in turn regarrisoned the castle of Gastun (Baghras)7! southeas

t of Alexandretta to defend the approach to Antioch from the northeast along the Orontes.”2 When this action failed to produce the desired financial result from Manuel, Renaud mad e peace with the Armenians and decided to attack Cypr us instead. To finance this he turned to the wealthy patriarch of Antioch, Aimery, who had thoroughly disapproved of Renaud as a husband for Constance. When Aimery, not surprisingly, refused his demands, Renaud had him thrown into prison, physically abus ed, and publicly humiliat ed on the citadel of Antioch, a deed

that won Renaud much notoriety in later years.73 The king, forced

to intervene, sent Officials to secure the patriarch’s release, but the physical intimidation had had

the desired effect, Aimery agreed to pay and was let g0. He then fled to Jerusalem for safety. In the spring of 1156 Renaud invaded Cyprus with Armenian allies, wreaking havoc for nearly a month and making off with shiploads of booty.”4 Hearing of Renaud’s exploits, the king took the opportunity of

Thierry of Flanders’s arrival in the Holy Land in

1157 to mount a joint campaign with the Antiochene prince against Shayzar on the Orontes. Baldwin had promised

the territory to Thie

rry once they took it, presumably assuming Renaud would agre e to this as a sensible strengthening of Antioch’s sout heastern flank. Renaud, however, would accept this arrangement only

if Thierry paid homage to him for it, some thing Thierry was not

Prepared to do. The dispute forc ed the curtailment of the campaign, and the army was only able to take possession of Harenc on the way back to Antioch as a kind of consolation prize. It was now February 1158.

Renaud of Chatillon’s appalling, but, as it turned out, typical conduct infuriated the emperor and forced the king to reconsider his policy toward Antioch. He sought a rap] srochement with Manuel and for that an

embassy ws sent to Constantinople. Among the benefits of this initiative Baldwin III was offered the hand of the lovely V’rincess Theodora, niece of the Emperor, in

marriage.

‘he wedding took place at Jerusalem in Sep-

tember 1158, with Aimery of Antioch officiating. Another beneficial result was the indication that

Manuel would join an alliance against Nureddin. In the fail of 1158 Manuel led the Byzantine army

into Cilicia, where first Renaud, then Baldwin IIL, and finally Amaury, count of Ascalon and Jaffa, came to Mamistra to treat with him. The emperor pardoned the prince only after a humiliating ceremony, reported by

Byzantine historians and William of Tyre alike in great detail: ... in view of the assembled legions, he [Renaud] is said to have appeared before the emperor barefooted and clothed in a woolen tunic short to the elbows, with a rope around his neck and a naked sword in his hand. Holding this by the point, he presented the hilt to the emperor. As soon as he had thus surrendered his sword, he threw himself on the ground at the emperor’s feet, where he lay prostrate till all were disgusted and the glory of the Latins was turned to shame; for

he was a man of violent impulses, both in sinning and in repenting.”°

Manuel imposed stern conditions on Renaud, including provision of the citadel for garrisoning imperial troops on demand, and the recognition of a Greek patriarch in Antioch. Manuel accorded King Baldwin III very different treatment. Baldwin was received with great pomp and circumstance and spent ten “agreeable” days with the emperor, during which they established an important personal and political relationship as relatives and heads of state. Ultimately Baldwin was able to intercede for the Armenian Thoros so that in the end Manuel pardoned him as well. When Baldwin left to return to Antioch, William of Tyre reports that the emperor bestowed much money on him and, in addition, “vestibus et olosericis et vasis preciosis.””” Shortly after Baldwin left, his brother, Count Amaury of Ascalon and Jaffa, also came to visit Manuel. This was their first meeting and clearly it must have been fruitful. Amaury, though second to Baldwin

in many ways, would outdo his brother and achieve much more substantial political, military, and artistic

paved the way for Amaury’s success with Manuel. We can in any case mark the significant strengthening of

Byzantine influence in the Latin Kingdom from the wedding of Baldwin III to Theodora and these meetings with the Emperor Manuel in the unlikely surroundings of Mamistra. We would also like to know how the precious garments, silks, and vases given to Baldwin — and perhaps to Amaury as well — may have influenced Crusader artists in the Latin Kingdom. On Easter Sunday, 1159, Manuel made a triumphal

entry into Antioch, sixty years after Alexius I had failed to appear here and press Byzantine claims to the principality. When he met again here with King Baldwin III in 1159 and they hunted together, Manuel personally ministered to Baldwin when the king fractured his arm in a fall from his horse. William of Tyre observed that Manuel “could scarcely have shown more solicitude had Baldwin been his own son.””8 Despite the congenial personal relations, however, Byzantine diplomatic goals remained separate from those of the Latin Kingdom. When Manuel marched out of Antioch with Baldwin to confront Nureddin to the east, the king must have been astonished to see the emperor negotiate a treaty with Nureddin’s ambassadors and return home. Baldwin clearly seemed to understand Manuel's objectives, however, and in the ensuing years he refrained

from mounting any major campaigns against Nureddin while he waged war against the Seljuks.” It was during those years, in November

1160, that

Renaud de Chatillon was removed from Antioch by his own greed. Captured during a raid into Moslem territory, he was imprisoned in Aleppo. No one cared to free him, so he remained in jail fifteen years, until 1175. In Antioch he was so unpopular that his wife Constance could not maintain the rule in their name. The Antiochenes themselves immediately turned to the king of Jerusalem, demonstrating once again that, whatever power the Byzantine emperor claimed as overlord, in reality it was the king who provided leadership and protection. He came north and arranged for the patriarch Aimery to rule in the interim, while declaring Bohemond — Constance’s son (he was fifteen

in 1161) by her marriage to Raymond of Poitiers — the rightful prince. Bohemond III apparently took the reins of government in 1163.% Neither Constance nor Manuel was happy with this solution for various obvious reasons. Thus when Manuel sought a bride in 1160 after the death of his consort Bertha of Sulzbach, he chose Constance’s daughter,

ties with Manuel in the years ahead. He eventually €ven saw Constantinople on a state visit, something no

Maria, over Baldwin III's choice, Melisende, daughter of

other reigning king of Jerusalem would experience in

married Constance herself when she was nine years old, and here a union with her daughter meant that Anti-

the twelfth century. To some extent, of course, Baldwin

Raymond II of Tripoli. Manuel long ago had almost

och’s primacy would be upheld over that of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Manuel's displeasure over the way Aimery and Bohemond had been installed without his consent would be effectively conveyed. While Baldwin III was in Antioch this final time in

mid-1161, he rebuilt a fortress northeast of the city.

Known as the “Iron Bridge” (Jisr al-Hadid), this was

what state: damaged or incomple te or both. It pres

um. ably was not built by the Templars . The evidence of different stone used in the nave and the change of flori-

ated capitals from plain flat-leafed to a more

naturalig. tic style indicates it was not comp leted unti! later, in the thirteenth century. Thus we can attribut e its plan (see

the last of the king’s many efforts to administer protection for the principality.8!

Plate 8B.12a) to the mid-twelfth century; at least there seems to be no major changes in the design of the spatial units or in the piers. It has a typical Crusader Nave

Crusader Architecture

tripartite apsidal east end.®% It is a rela tively large church (nave ca. 47 m long), but of the two basic twelfth-century Crusader plans for a basilica of this size, it is the sim-

(see Plate 8B.12e) and twoaisle plan with

Increasingly it was not the king so much as the milit ary orders that were responsible for maintaining the major defenses: the fortified cities and castles of the Crusader States. The Templars were foremost at this time. Given the castle at Gaza by Baldwin III, as mentioned earlier, they already controlled a number of castles in the Principality

of Antioch and in the County of Tripoli; however, along with Safitha (Chastel Blanc), their most significant hold-

ing at this time was probably Tortosa (Tartus).®2

Tortosa

In 1969 Jonathan Riley-Smith publ ished a document that shed light on the state of the town and its fortifications as well as relations betwee n the Templars, the bishop of Tortosa, and the patr iarch of Jerusalem in 1152. After Tortosa was recovere d from Nureddin by April 1152, the Templars rebu ilt and enlarged its defenses. At the northern end of the town, the massive citadel facing on the sea — som ewhat comparable in situation to their later headquarters at St. Jean d’Acre — was ringed with a double wall . Both inner and outer walls were anchored with a system of rectangular towers. The mixture of work from the twelfth and the thirteenth century is hard to sort out, but the northern gate seems to be early. It features marginally drafted masonry that is also found late r. We also see the use of broad pointed arches in the gate and the fortress chapel, comparable to what we have seen in the 1140s in Jerusalem and elsewhere.* The large chapel (29.4 x 14.1 m), which was exempt ed from the bishop’s cont rol as a Templar holding, has the same type of single-portal arched entrance with spla yed jambs comparable to what existed on the con temporary cathedrals of Sebaste, Ramla, and Gaza.% The bishop’s cathedral in the city proper, the venerable Church of Notre Dame (Plates 8B.12a-8B.12f), apparently already existe

d at the time the original doc ument was written in 1152 , although it is not clear in

pler of the two: all the bays of the nave are essentially the same size and there is no dome, in contrast to, for

example, St. Anne’s in Jerusale m. Its fortified construction (see Plates 8B.12b and 8B.1 2d) must have been needed in the town, which was much more vulnerable to attack than the citadel. Thus its Massive walls, buttresses,

and towers must also have been planned in the twelfth century, judging from the comments of Muhammad al-Idrisi.87 In function this church was not only a cathedral but also, like many Crusader churches , apparently a focus of pilgrimage during this period.8 ® Here, according to

one tradition, was

located the oldest chapel in Christendom dedicated to the Virgin Mary, founded by the apostles,

with an altar that St. Peter himself

consecrated. Here one could see an auth entic icon of the Virgin and Child painted by St. Luke. An earthquake had

destroyed the chapel in 387, but the altar and

the icon were apparently available for pilg rims to venerate in the twelfth century. Enlart question ed where the altar

was to be located, that is, insi de the church bene

ath the enlarged pier on the north side of the nave (see Plate 8B.12f), or as a Separate chapel outs ide the church. The issue is problematic because pilg rimage continued here

only into the early fourteenth cent ury, not into

modern times, unlike many other sites. It is also striking that alm ost everything specific we kno w abou

t the Crusader tradition of Pilgrimage here dates after 1200, to the thirteenth century or later .89 While the Templars had become heav ily

involved in the defense of the realm early on because they

were a military order from the beginnin

g, the Hospitalers assumed these duti es more gradually, perh aps on the model of the Temp lars. True, the Hospital ers had received Beth Gibelin in the south in 1136, as we have

seen, and in the County of Tripoli, Crac des Chevaliers in 1144, and the order had assumed some

additional Tesponsibility for the valley of La Bocq uée east of Crac also in the 1140 s. However, the Hospitalers were still not very acti ve militarily during the

Plate 8B.12a. Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus: plan (after Enlart).

Fic.

19

Plate 8B.12b.

Toeteve 3 dicembue Stl

Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus:

detail, west facade.

303

Plate 8B.12c. Cathedral Church of N, otre Dame detail, west facade lancet, left side.

7

Tartus:

Plate 8B.12d -

Cathedral Church of Not re Dame Tartus: south side with butt resses

,

Plate 8B.12e. Tartus: nave.

Plate 8B.12¢. enlarged pier.

Cathedral Church of Notre Dame, Tartus:

305

Cathedral Church of Notr e Dame,

reign of Baldwin III. The main advances for the order in this period came in terms of the confirmation of their rule in ca. 1153 by Pope Eugenius, and the grant of exempt status, which was demonstrated by papal support of the independence of the order in the face of charges of insubordination against them by Patriarch Fulcher and numerous bishops of the Latin Kingdom in 1155.”! Despite the low level of military presence as yet manifested by the Knights of St. John in contrast to their hospital activities, they did apparently have an indirect influence on the Latin Kingdom in terms of

church dedications, if not church construction. The

Patron saint of the order was St. John the Baptist.®2 All over the Latin Kingdom in the middle years of the century we find churches dedicated to St. John, in some cases explicitly St. John the Baptist.% Althoug h we have already found this phenomenon in the first half of the century, for example, the cathedral at

proximate local sources and this type of arch Was widely used by Crusader architects and mason s for the construction of churches in the twelfth centur y, here at Ramla and throughout the Crusader States, as

we shall continue to see. The composite cruciformshaped piers are impressive because of their Massive

size, accentuated partly because they lack any kind of bases. It is unclear whether no bases were planned, or whether the modern floor used for the mosqu e simp] covers the original floor at a level sufficient to eliminate any trace of the bases. The broad-leaf foliate capitals found at Ramla are comparable if not exactly the

same as those found at the other churches being dis-

cussed here. Boase characterized them as ear! y Gothic, but there is nothing of the naturalism that typifies some later Crusader work as gothicizing. ”” Some of the

Beirut and the Maronite church at Gibelet, it intensi-

fies after 1150. The main examples include the impres-

sive churches of St. John the Baptist at Ramla, at Gaza,

and especially at Sebaste: at the cathedral and the smaller Byzantine church commemorating the beheading of John the Baptist. All of these churches appear to have been built in the decade following the completion of the major building projects in Jerusalem, although in most cases a specific date cannot be determined.

Ramla The church at Ramla has survived like most of the others by being converted into a mosque (Plates 8B.13a-8B.13d).% It is an impressi ve building on the inside, distinguished by its size; its barrel-vaulted nave and large, gently pointed arches; and its imposing comPosite piers with engaged columns and foliate capitals. It has an extremely regular rectangu lar plan with a triapsidal east end, the latter which may be derived from the Byzantine church it replaced.% Despite the fact that it is nearly the same length as the Tortosa cathedral, it appears much longer because it has seven instead of just four bays in the nave. The appearance of the characte ristic Levantine broad pointed-arch form for the nave barrel vaulting and the nave arcades is Particul arly interesting here because Ramla is also the site of the so-called “Cistern of St. Helena.” In A.D. 789 the Bir al-Aneziyya, a huge cistern, was built by the Mos lems on the southwest side of the city with this type of arch design (see Plate 1.2).%° The model was therefor e readily available from

Plate 8B.13a.

Church of St. John, Ramla: plan (after Enlart).

Plate 8B.13c.

Plate 8B.13b.

Church of St. John, Ramla: pier capitals.

Church of St. John, Ramla: nave, looking east.

basket capitals also appear to be in secondary use from the Byzantine church that the cathedral replaced on the site. Ramla was an important stopping place for pilgrims en route to Jerusalem from Jaffa, but no holy site was r, located in the Church of St. John. Ramla was, howeve

linked in ecclesiastical organization to Lydda nearby and with its great shrine in honor of St. George.8 The Cathedral of St. George existed as a Byzantine wood-roofed columned basilica at the time of the First Crusade, when it was destroyed for timbers to build siege machines.” It by was then rebuilt probably in the early 1150s; at least

take 1153 the consecration of the bishop of Sidon could aisled threea ced place inside it. The Crusaders produ a tridomed basilica of five bays with stone vaulting and t curren ntary fragme the apsidal east end. The plan of the of little very but building reflects this design, twelfth-century structure remains. The Tomb of St.

altar. George was located in the crypt beneath the main r Nonetheless the Cathedral of St. George is anothe important example of the widespread appearance of the Crusader domed basilica at major sites.

Plate 8B.13d.

portal.

307

Church of St. John, Ramla: facade with west

Gaza Farther to the south, Gaza was an ancient

©! ristian

city, but the Crusaders only captured it in 1149, The Church of St. John the Baptist was apparently built shortly thereafter while the town was being refortifieg and defended by the Templars. The vaulting and east end of the church at Gaza was heavily destroyed dur-

ing the British bombardment in 1916, but the b; tilding has been restored (Plates 8B.14a-8B.14d).10! This church is difficult to characterize because of its fragmentary condition. The plan is currently reduced to

four bays consisting of a nave and two side aisles, with a modern diagonal extension on the south side. At present the church has no apsidal terminations, only major entrances at both the east and west ends. The two- story

elevation includes groin-vaulted bays like the cathedral at Tortosa. Also similar is the strongly sculptural effect of the engaged columns beneath the pronounced transverse arches in the nave, unlike the slender dosserets of St. John’s, Ramla. There appears to be considerable reuse of earlier, mostly Byzantine, sculpture for some of the capitals. The handsome, albeit restored, pointed-arch

y

Plate 8B.14a. Benveniste).

Plate 8B.14b.

Church

of St. John, Gaza: plan (after

Church of St. John, Gaza: view, ca. 1918. (Photo : British Mandate /Israel Antiquities Authority)

308

west portal (Plate 8B.14c) is a typical Crusader design, with multiple archivolts featuring round moldings — no figural sculpture — over a blank tympanum, stepped back above the splayed jambs. The jambs are articulated by colonettes with thick-leaf foliate capitals set on characteristic socles carved with what Enlart calls, “cannelures rudentées.” This type of socle is found in widespread use by Crusader masons in the third quarter of the twelfth century. There was no pilgrimage site in this church, but the Tomb of St. Porphyrius was to be seen elsewhere in Gaza.

a

Sebaste

:

The center of the cult of St. John the Baptist in the Crusader period was located in the ancient city of Sebaste, not far from Nablus, to the west and a little

Plate 8B.14c.

Church of St. John, Gaza: west portal.

Plate 8B.14d.

Church of St. John, Gaza: capital.

north. Sebaste possessed two sites that were directly associated with the cult of St. John the Baptist, his tomb, and the place where his head was buried. Despite the importance of Sebaste for the cult, however, architecturally both Crusader churches built there are distinctively different from those at Ramla and Gaza. In the cathedral, pilgrimage to the Tomb of St. John was the major feature and the church reflected its importance. As de Vogiié wrote: “L’église cathédrale de Sébaste est, aprés celle du Saint-Sépulchre de Jérusalem, la plus considérable et la plus ornée que les Croisés aient elevée en Terre Sainte.” Certainly it was one of the biggest churches overall, second only to the Holy Sepulcher, the original nave being nearly 60 m long (Plates 8B.15a—-8B.15e). The walls survive today only to the first-story level, and a mosque was built in the apsidal east end about 1893. Nonetheless the plan is relatively clear. De Vogiié saw in this church a Crusader basilica that was distinguished by the elegance of its proportions and the finesse of its decoration, an assessment echoed by later scholars. In plan the elegance resides in the spaciousness of its components and in the complexities of the relationships of the nave with the crossing, the transepts, and the choir, and the articulation of its bays — sexpartite in the nave and quadripartite in the aisles — that are not closely paralleled by any of its contemporaries in the Latin East. The two large rectangular bays of the nave are articulated by alternating supports: cruciform piers and paired columns. The square crossing is smaller than each nave bay, and the contained transepts are equivalent to onehalf of the crossing bay. A choir is then distinguished from the crossing and transepts with aisle-sized rectangular bays attached directly to the north and south apses, and a rectangular choir extension linking the

309

COURTYARD

rey

ty

12" CENTURY OR EARUER, SEEN BP oe WOT MORE RECENT

Fig.

Plate 8B.15a. (after Enlart).

|

ag

eSEEN

Bee

H

js)

=

ud

ee

22

Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: plan

=

Plate 8B.15b.

4:

Se

5

Cathedral of St. John the Bapt ist, Sebaste: v iew of the west end.

310

M.

ea

eo

e Baptist, Sebaste: single capital on side wall.

(.. Plate 8B.15c.

ee

ae

Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste:

nave, triple capitals at springing of vaults.

Plate 8B.15f. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: portal capital - Herod’s banquet, left. (Photo: Istanbul, National Archeological Museum)

Plate 8B.15e. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: double capital on side wall.

central bay and the apse. Thus the plan indicates a sophisticated version of the Crusader longitudinal basilica, without a dome. Enlart, followed by Hamilton, restored ribbed vaults in elevation, making Sebaste cathedral the most important rib-vaulted church in the wake of the initiative seen at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. 1% The finesse of the decoration is found in the handsome details of the moldings above and below the thick-leaf foliate capitals on the interior (see Plates 8B.15c-8B.15e), figural sculpture on three large console pieces installed originally, according to Enlart, as rib

311

receivers, as well as in a program of figural decoration on the exterior of the main western portal (Plates 8B.15f-8B.151). The portal sculpture is, however, no

longer in situ, having been moved to the Archeological Museum in Istanbul by the Ottoman Turks.!°7 Originally located on the colonettes of the splayed portal, the program of decoration was found on a series of marble capitals, of which four are extant, recut from architectural sculpture taken from an ancient building. Walsh has shown convincingly how the three capitals with narrative themes were recarved and placed on the splayed jambs to form the decoration of the left

RE,

Plate 8B.15g. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: portal capital — Herod’s banquet, right. (Photo:

a =

Archeological Museum)

"a K.

(

Salome, left. (Photo: Istanbul, National

Museum)

UE

oss

Plat e 8B.15h. Ca thedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: portal capital:

Istanbul, National Archeological

pee

~.

ae

r

ae

|

Plate 8B.15i. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: Salome, right. (Photo:

.

Istanbul, Museum)

:

National

Archeological

*%

Plate 8B.15j.

Cathedral of St. John the Baptis

Sebaste: portal capitals — left, Salome, right,

dex

St. John. (Photo: Istanbul, National Archeo logical Museum) :

\) Plate 8B.15k. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: portal capital — lion, right. (Phot o: Istanbul, National

Archeological Museum)

Plate 8B.151. Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: lion capital, three men on front. (Phot o: Istanbul, National

Archeological Museum)

of the portal. They represent the story of Herod’s

not the abbey church of St. Denis, was influential in the Latin Kingdom, in light of Louis VII's visit during the Second Crusade.14

b anquet

on the first capital (see Plates 8B.15f and i5g), the dance of Salomé on the second (see Plates and 8B.15i), and on the third, the execution of . and the transport of his soul to heaven (see Plate i). Only one capital from the right side of the door es (see Plates 8B.15k and 8B.15l). Its subject is ich more problematic with three male figures on the

Crusader Fresco Painting Although no painted decoration is known to have existed in the cathedral, significant fresco fragments survive in the crypt of the Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John the Baptist nearby (Plates

ont face: the most important figure bust-length, il, and holding a book while probably blessing, »rher two subordinated to either side, one kneeling the left, one standing on the right. On the right face capital is found a diminutive lion perched on the

8B.16a—8B.16e).!5 In the apsidal niche on the east wall

of the crypt (see Plate 8B.16b), the main altar area for the holy site itself, we see in the upper part an image of

> below.108 Even though the sculptural program of the capitals

the decapitation of St. John (see Plate 8B.16c), and below, the burial of his head (see Plate 8B.16d). Flank-

only partially survives here, it has two parallels with the figural lintel decoration on the main entrance of the

ing the niche on the side walls at the level of the upper scene are found the images of two kneeling angels (see Plate 8B.16e). The frescoes are extremely fragmentary, but we can see that the work was of good quality. The execution is rather painterly, with a flowing curvilinear design of the kneeling angels, skillful use of highlighting — both linear and washed — over the drapery surfaces of the body to help create the idea of three-dimen-

Holy Sepulcher. In the first place, narrative figural sculpture is balanced with what appears to be nonnarrative, more symbolic sculpture featuring humans with plants and creatures from the animal world.! Second, the narrative sculpture directly “leads” the pilgrim to the holy site, depicting events that precede what the visitor will find commemorated inside the church. Again using the recently completed church of the Holy Sepulcher as a paradigm, inside the church we would then expect to find additional figural imagery, quite probably monumental painting, directly related to the

sional figures, and rich colorism in the mauve

or

lavender and blue of their garments and the vivid reds of their wings — see also the reds of the two figures in the main scenes. We notice the prominent appearance of the landscape — meant to evoke the hill of Sebaste in the lower part of the niche —- which is wholly consistent with the tradition of the evocation of place in loca sancta pictures in the twelfth century, as well as earlier. Finally, detailed analysis of the iconography of the lower scene indicates that it is based on Byzantine illustrated menologia and refers to the “second martyrdom” suffered by the body of St. John at the hands of Julian the Apostate, uniquely claimed for Sebaste."6 Kiihnel assigns these frescoes to the hand of a Byzantine artist on the basis of iconography, style, and technique, and cautiously dates them to the third quarter of the twelfth century, not wishing to push the evidence beyond its fragmentary limits. Stylistically we can also point out that the proportions of these figures are quite stocky and very different from, for example, the more slender angels done by different Byzantine painters at the Damascus Gate chapel in Jerusalem, or in the fresco fragment from the church of Gethsemane.

shrine, in this case the Tomb of St. John.“

On the basis of historical and art historical analysis, N. Kenaan-Kedar has made the recent observation that the cathedral at Sebaste shows significant parallels with the early Gothic church of Sens.! She has discovered and investigated the documentation for Western donors, among whom were King Louis VII and Archbishop William of Sens, making important gifts to build the Cathedral of St. John in 1168-1179. She has

moreover identified noteworthy relationships between the plans, elevations, and sculptural decorations of the two churches. It thus appears that the Cathedral of Sebaste was to some extent directly modeled on the Cathedral of St. Etienne at Sens, but later, the latter an

important example of early Gothic started in the 1140s. This case illustrates the fact that direct connections between the ecclesiastical architecture of the Latin Kingdom and that in France were possible and did occur, but they cannot be assumed without documentary evidence. Yet, despite some similarities, there were also important differences between the two churches." Finally, we also observe that the impact of Sens on the

In fact, the articulation and relative simplicity of the

drapery forms, the three-dimensionality of the modeling, and the stocky proportions of the Sebaste angels especially suggest that the Sebaste frescoes should be dated earlier than those done in the early 1160s at the Damascus Gate and Gethsemane, as well as the mosaic

Sebaste church was limited and carried beyond only to the Crusader church at Jacob’s Well outside Nablus."

Finally, it is remarkable that the cathedral of Sens, and

313

Plate 8B.16a. view (1940s).

Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste:

Plate 8B.16b. Church of the Inv enti on of the Head of St. John the Baptist, Sebaste: frescoes in crypt, view.

Plate 8B.16c. Church of the Invention of the Head of John the Baptist, Sebaste: frescoes in apse.

314

Wh *s

Plate 8B.16d.

Church of the Invention of the Head of St.

John the Baptist, Sebaste: frescoes under the altar.

Plate 8B.16e.

Church of the Invention of the Head of St.

John the Baptist, Sebaste: angel, left.

work and many column paintings at Bethlehem and the frescoes at Abu Ghosh, which should be dated to the late 1160s and 1170s.""7 In fact, it is likely that the painter who worked in the Sebaste crypt was not Byzantine at all, but a Western painter who, like Basil

of the Melisende Psalter, was thoroughly steeped in Byzantine technique, style, and iconography. Thus about the same time that the Crusaders rebuilt the

Church of the Invention of the Head of St. John the Baptist, in the crypt a program of fresco painting was

carried out that identified and embellished this locus

sanctus.

Meanwhile at Bethlehem the dedication of painted

images to various saints by visiting pilgrims apparently continued. One of the most striking aspects of the column paintings is the wide range of saints represented from all over Christendom, east and west, north and south. While a certain number of these ex voto images, mostly of Byzantine saints, appears to have been executed as part of the major commission to redecorate the church by Manuel I, Amaury I, and Ralph, bishop of Bethlehem, many were done earlier and at least three examples may date to the 1150s. The saints in question are Knute IV, King of the Danes, who died in 1086 (Plates 8B.17a and 8B.17b); Olaf II Haraldsson, King of

Norway, who died in 1030 (Plates 8B.18a-8B.18c); and

Be Plate 8B.17a.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column

Plate 8B.17b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — King Knute IV, view, right side. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

painting — King Knute IV, view, left side. (Photo: British

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

315

Plate 8B.18a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — King

Plate 8B.18b.

Olaf Il, frontal view. (Photo: British

Olaf II, view, right side (Photo: British

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Church of the Nativity,

Bethlehem: column painting — King

Plate 8B.18c.

Church of the Nativ ity,

Bethlehem: column painting — King Olaf II, female pilgrim (Photo: British

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

wad

Plate 8B.19a. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. George , view, left side (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Plate 8B.19b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column painting — St. George, view, right side (Photo: British

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

316

eorge (Plates 8B.19a and 8B.19b) (see Figure 2).18 »f the Nordic kings were major leaders in the anization of Scandinavia, and among the figures

appears with Olaf, outside the frame and to the left of

his picture (see Plate 8B.18c).!24 She appears just above a ground-line level with the lower frame. In contrast to the praying figures which were painted with the Glykophilousa, this woman is in three-quarter pose with her face almost completely frontal as she raises her hands in supplication. She appears to be Western and aristocratic. Her costume, apart from her long dress and pointed shoes, is very similar to Olaf’s. She has long hair with some kind of dark but indistinct head covering. We have no indication as to who this figure might be. The fact that she appears to the side of King Olaf and does not touch his image with her head (or her hands) raises the question whether she might have been commissioned by a Scandinavian visitor who

columns they are the ones most recently recog-

s saints, Olaf in 1031 and Knute in 1100. 15 images they are quite closely related in type and tion to each other in iconography and style. As | has pointed out, they combine both the ceremoect of kingship in their costume and regalia, with ole as military leaders expressed in the shields they ind the weapon held by Knute. Kiihnel argues that representations are both Byzantine-influenced, in

their

commanding frontal standing pose and their gar-

ments of tunic and chlamys, but that there are substantial

Western aspects as well. In particular, one notes their magnificent fur-lined cloaks," their elegant “Norman” s, and their gold and jeweled circlet crowns. These gures Clearly reflect the type of imagery and the style we have found to be characteristic of painting in the period after the Melisende Psalter, and especially after the work done in the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. It is difficult to date these two works in the absence of relevant comparanda. Certainly they do not compare closely to the work done in the crypt of the Church of

came later to Bethlehem, some time after the image of

Olaf had been done.! One other column painting is closely related to these images of the kings, namely, the icon of St. George (see Plates 8B.19a and 8B.19b). He is similar, not only because of his pose and the military attributes of a spear and a (round) shield, but also because of his stylistic handling. Obviously St. George is much more Byzantine in concept and execution, however; moreover, he was given inscriptions in Greek and Latin, not just in Latin, as in the case of the two Nordic kings. There is one other figure that may also belong to this group of paintings, namely, the image of St. John the Baptist (Plate 8B.20). Although very damaged, this painting shows similarities in the proportions of the

the Invention of the Head of St. John in Sebaste (see Plates 8B.16a—8B.16e). However, two considerations

may point to the 1150s as a likely time of execution. No pilgrims’ accounts in the mid- or late twelfth century comment on the column paintings at Bethlehem, but most notable among them are the two Icelandic texts: those of Nikulas of Pvera (ca. 1140) and the anonymous

pilgrim of ca. 1150. We may take it as extremely likely that one or both of these pilgrims would have remarked on the appearance of saints of such recent Nordic origin if they had seen them.!2° We may also note that during the 1150s several prominent visitors from Scandinavia could have commissioned these works. In particular, two brothers, Svein and Eskill ci Sveinsson, grandsons of Botild, wife of Eric the Good,

King of Denmark, made the journey between 1150 and 1152, and they died in the Holy Land in 1152.7! Meanwhile from Norway, Baron Rognwaldr III came on Cruade, and when he and his men arrived in the Holy

Land in 1153, they participated in the siege of Ascalon. Baron Rognwaldr returned home after a visit to Constantinople. Kiihnel himself suggests that King Olaf’s picture may have been commissioned by Rognwaldr whule he was in the Holy Land and that it was executed then or shortly thereafter.!22 Given the close artistic relationship of the two paintings, it is probable that the same painter may have done the icon of King Knute as well, for Svein and/or Eskill.!3

Plate 8B.20. painting

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column -

St.

John

the

Baptist.

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

There is an enigmatic kneeling female figure who

317

(Photo:

British

figure, for example, the largish head as related to the slender, small-shouldered body and the diminutive arms. Also, the complex patterns of the draperies appear to be similar to those of Knute. Note that this image of St. John the Baptist was, unfortunately, dirtied the worst among these column paintings during the winter of 1991-1992 because of the unusual snowfalls and heavy rain that apparently caused serious leakage in the roof directly above.!* Clearly the three elegant figures of George, Olaf, and Knute raise a basic question about the origin of the artist who did them. It is a question very difficult to answer. It is highly unlikely that a Scandinavian painter would have done all three. It is possible that a Byzantine artist could have done them, but it would have taken detailed guidelines in the form of sketches to specify the iconographic particulars with which he would not have been familiar. It is also possible, perhaps more probable, that an Italian painter, that is, someone familiar with a wide range of Byzantine and Western saints, may have done them. However, we should perhaps also consider another possibility, the existence of an ongoing workshop or atelier at Bethlehem in whicha small group of artis tsall from the —not same origin — worked and in which they learned to handle the polyglot orders of visiting pilgrims from all over the Christian world. Besides major commissions like the column paintings — which after all only produced thirty orders over roughly a forty-year period — these artists would also have worked on smaller portable souvenirs, like icons and painted boxes, that pilgrims could purchase and take home with them. From the evidence of the paintings in the Melisende Psalter it is clear that a group of artists with various backgrounds could work together in a Crusader workshop. The visual evidence of the column paintings with So many variations of style and numerous small clusters of stylistically related work seemingly randomly placed forces us to consider such a possibili ty also at Bethlehem.!2

The Chapel of the Repose in Jerusalem These examples of sculpture and Painting are remarkable indications of the ing, indeed growing, importance of pilgrimage in the 1150 s throughout the Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem as a majo r source of inspiration and patronage for Crusader artistic develop-

Holy Sepulcher that related tothepass ion ofChrist and his route carrying the cross to Calvary, a new locus sanc-

tus was decorated with capitals some what comparable

to those at Sebaste. The Chapel of the Repose was Probably

constructed and decorated ca. 1160 as the point at

which Christ was held after his capture in the gard en of Gethsemane (Plates 8B.21a-8B.21f).12 By the second half of the century, pilgrims would visit this cha pel before praying at the Chapel of the Condemna tion and the

Chapel of the Flagellation in the area newly identified

with the praetorium, before then moving on toward the Calvary Chapel and the Church of Holy Sepulcher along the Haram and St. John’s Street.

Four extant historiated capitals have been attributed

to the Chapel of the Repose, a small domed structure

that stands at the western end of the northern Wall of the Haram and that now survives only Partia lly. Unlike the capitals from the portal at Sebas te, these four repeat, each with subtle differences, the image of the

Repose of Christ attended by angels. Thus, instead of leading the pilgrim by a series of preliminary scenes to

a shrine, as found at earlier sites such as the Holy Sep-

ulcher or Sebaste, these capitals actually ident ified and depicted the event that was said to have taken place here. These four capitals were placed in the antec hamber to the cell, which was apparently designated as the room in which Christ was held by Pilate. It mark ed a major shift in the concept of programmatic decor ation of a pilgrimage place. Instead of using fresc o and mosaic in the traditional Byzantine mode to embel lish the interior of these shrines, now the Crusaders were experimenting with figural sculpture as well. This appears to have been a relatively new idea ca. 1160, which would receive its most important and exten sive manifestation at Nazareth in the Crusader Chur ch of the Annunciation after 1170.130 The capitals themselves illustrate the figure of Christ seated on a rock (see Plates 8B.21c-8B.21f). Icono graphically the imagery seems to be drawn from rare depictions of Matthew 4:11, where the angels minis ter to Christ after his temptation by the devil. Stylis tically and iconographically these figural capitals are totally Western, indeed French, in inspiration, suggesting that French-trained sculptors were newly available for work in the Latin Kingdom, perhaps as a result of the disbanding of the big ateliers in Jerusalem after ca.

1150, or perhaps as the result of newly arrived pilgrim

artists coming to the Holy Land in the 1150s. In either case, the new interest in historiated figura l capitals in the characteristic Romanesque mode coinc ides with

other indications of a newly important French sculp-

tural presence in the Latin Kingdom from the 1140s on. Not all of the Crusader figural sculpture that we find at this period is religious in content, as we would

expect from a repertory that, however much tied it is to

pilgrimage, also involves the decorative in the Romanesque sense of the fantastic and the amusing We have already mentioned the lion on the capital at Sebaste (see Plate 8B.15k) and seen the hybrid animals, such as griffins, that were found on the earlier capitals of the Church

of the Ascension

as well as the

double capital from St. Peter’s in Gallicantu." In addition there is the interesting example of the siren — popularly identified today as a mermaid — that is found on architectural sculpture in both Jerusalem and Nablus at this time (Plates 8B.22 and 8B.23).

Characteristically imaginative and fantastic manifestations of the Romanesque aesthetic are also to be found on other architectural members, such as corbels,

similar to the examples we have

already found on the

with

the

earlier

versions

at the

chur lurchnes

Beirut and St. John in Gibelet az

;

interior

1d

new

of St.

Anne’s

dome of the

and

Church

ar

the

of the Holy

This disparate group

mt of sculptures

questions about developments

OF

St.

jonn

in Jerusalem, y

in the

exterior

on

th the

of

the

»pulcher puicne!

poses

in

1150s

tic Variations indicate that these works we re done by different sculptors. The possibility exists that the active

masons

yards

working

at the various

sites

from

In most cases, however, the sculptors of the recent figural work seem to be French in background

north portal of the Church of St. Mary Latin. See also

the corbels from the cathedral in Sebaste, compared

a.

:

METERS

PLAN

Plate

8B 21a

Jerusalem: NORTH op

wa The

HARAM

X 7, FIP F777 ~~

b. LOCATION

CONVENT OFTHE FLAGELLATION

ca

1150 to ca. 1160, mentioned ea T prov 10ea opportunities for sculptors to find work with them In some cases it is very likely that some sculptors came from the large ateliers in Jerusalem of the 1140s and early 1150s

plan

Chapel

of

the

Repose

Plate 8B.21b.

Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: view.

Plate 8B.21c.

Chapel of the Repose, Jerusalem: capital 1 (east).

320

ee

Plate 8B.21d.

Chapel of the Repose,

Jerusalem: capital 2 (north).

Plate 8B.21e.

Chapel of the Repose,

Jerusalem: capital 3 (west).

Plate 8B.21f.

Chapel of the Repose,

Jerusalem: capital 4 (Islamic Museum)

(Photo: Michael Burgoyne)

Plate 8B.22. Cadi

Jerusalem, Haram: summer Burhan ed-Din — detail, siren.

pulpit of Plate 8B.23.

Jerusalem, Haram: abacus detail, siren.

with, it is obviously a pilgrimage church meant for those coming to Nazareth nearby, where, according to certain accounts, Anna and Mary were born, and where Mary

Sephoris Of course not all of the churches built in these years were dedicated to St. John the Baptist. At Sephoris in Galilee a major church was put up in honor of St. Anne, a competitor of sorts with the church by the same name

lived for a time with Joachim and Anna before she lived

in Jerusalem (Plates 8B.24a and 8B.24b).19” The church in

with Joseph in Nazareth.! The church is also quite large for what was a relatively small village clearly suggesting that the patrons and the architect must have had the

Sephoris is interesting for a number of reasons. To start

church of St. Anne in Jerusalem in mind as a model.!5?

321

Plate 8B.24a.

Church of St. Anne, Sephoris: view.

Plate 8B.24b. Church of St. Anne, Sephoris: plan (after RD. Pringle and P. Leach).

Although its remains are very fragmentary and whereas, in general, the church at Sephoris is similar in its archi-

tectural configuration of plan, elevation, and articula tion

to Notre Dame at Tortosa to the north, and to St. John’s

at Ramla to the south, it was quite elegantly done and it has several unique features that, taken together, are not found in any other Crusader church. Its tripartite east end combines two apses with a rectangular chambe r beneath what must have been a campanile on the northeast side. A small hidden rectangular room was placed behind the apse on the southeast side and may have functioned as the treasury. The presence of living rock in the main apse may have been intended to mark the holy

site of the House of Joachim. These features demonstrate

that whereas this church in type belongs to the rectangular-plan, longitudinal basilicas popular with the Crusaders in the third quarter of the century, its function as a pilgrimage church also apparently generat ed special features that gave it its particular identity, in contrast to

related churches in Nazareth and Jerusal em.

Besides these churches, controlled by the patriarchs of Jerusalem or Antioch, bishops, or one of the military orders, monastic establishments were being built as well. To this point the most important Latin monastic orders in the Latin East were the Benedict ines and the Augustinians, who between them serve d a number of

!

7

important holy sites. We should also recall that the Orthodox presence in the Crusader States substantially consisted of their numerous monasteries once Latin bishops had been installed in the various sees, and Latin clergy in the various churches. In view of what had been going on in Europe during the first half of the twelfth century, it is perhaps surprising that neither the Cluniacs nor the Cistercians entered the Hol y Land until the 1150s.

The Monastery of Belmont In 1157 the Cistercian house at Belmont was founded in the mountains southeast of Tripoli, near Amioun.' Although Raymond III of Tripoli was prob-

ably the immediate patron, one wonders if Queen Melisende could have had anything to do with this initiative through her sister, Hodierna.14i Of the main structures, a substantial portion of the plan dates to the twelfth century (Plate 8B.25), but above the founda-

tions basically only the chapel is largely intact, dating

to the period 1157-1169. Two other buildings belong to the thirteenth century, but most of the monastery has

been rebuilt in modern times.142 Compared to the churches we have seen in the Latin

UWSBAYE OC BELMONT

PLAN GENERAL DU REZ - DE- Qwusser

RELEVE O€S vouTEs

Plate 8B.25.

Belmont: Cistercian Abbey, plan (after Asmar).

The Western-style chapel of Belmont is useful to compare with the other larger and more complex Levantine Crusader churches we have discussed earlier.

Kingdom from the 1150s, the Belmont Chapel, in the words of Enlart, “est un example remarquable de I’austerité cistercienne; je serais méme tenté de dire qu’elle la dépasse, car peu d’églises cisterciennes sont aussi

Belmont chapel is clearly one of the few churches that,

simples.”'43 Compared to slightly later castle chapels

under scrutiny, would correspond to the principle of Enlart’s proposal that, “si l’on pouvait transporter les églises du royaume de Jérusalem dans les vallées du

we shall examine, it is not small, however, its interior

length approximating 31.5 m. The austere nave walls are articulated only by a simple horizontal molding, above which rises a majestically broad, pointed-arch

Rhone, de 1’Allier ou de la Garonne, il n’en est pas une

barrel vault. An apse 3.5 m deep lies at the east end. At the west end, now restored, two deeply splayed lancets and a small rose window surmount a single portal. The exterior moldings of the rose window again express the

chapel, however close it may be to the small churches

qui semblerait hors de son milieu.”145 The Belmont of Vinca (Pyrénées Orientales) and Lahouce (Basses Pyrénées), is rather different from these other Crusader

churches. Nonetheless their general similarities of basic design in terms of plans, elevations, vaulting, and their aesthetic of architectural articulation by means of

spare aesthetic so characteristic of the Cisterciens in the West.!4

323

ee

moldings and sculpture suggest that all of these churches in the Crusader States can reasonably be loosely grouped together chronologically, probably in the 1150s. Despite their similarities, however, each one of these

churches is distinct. And despite Enlart’s notion that they would not look out of place in France, they are different from contemporary French Romanesque churches in certain important ways. They are basically new adaptations of a Romanesque vaulted architecture that is handled flexibly in the Holy Land. The result is different because the Crusader patrons were in a new Levantine setting and because the architects, sculptors, and stone masons, even if some of them were trained in the West, were often working with local colleagues using local materials to meet the special needs of the individual sites. The Levantine climate did not require steeply angled rooves to ward off snow, it needed precisely laid masonry vaulting under flat roofs sealed against heavy rains. The beautiful broad pointed-arch vaults with few windows provided spacious bays with thick walls for defense and cool darkness for the high temperatures in the summer. The longitudinal basilican plan, furthermore, was frequently modified with domes, imitating local Byzantine, or even Armenianinspired architecture. When the new Gothic architecture was born in France in the 1140s, we see very little

reflection of this development in the Crusader East until much later, except in the Cathedral of St. John at Sebaste. The basic Crusader church design in the

twelfth century is Levantine-Romanesque, even after

1149, not west-European Gothic. In the later years of King Baldwin III's reign, two events were of great importance to him personally : his

marriage to the Byzantine princess Theod ora, in 1158,

and the death of his mother, the venerable queen of the Latin Kingdom, in 1161. It is difficult to identify any immediate artistic response to the advent of Baldwin’s new and much beloved Byzantine consort in the form of a specific monument or work of art. We may, how-

ever, reasonably take the date of her installation in Jerusalem, September 1158, as the point after which Byzantine influence in the arts begins to intensify. From this point on to a climax in the late 1160s, long after Baldwin’s death, the impact of Byzantium becomes the determining force in the development of Crusader art.

The Tombs of Melisende and Bal dwin III We can only wonder about Melisend e’s activities in her last years. With her political and artistic patronage sharply curtailed after the civil war in 1152, she spent

lll

her time thereafter mostly in Nablus, mostly out of the view of the public, and certainly mostly out of the

range of the pen of William of Tyre, who

has little to

say about her. We know she did continue to support

various ecclesiastical establishments and her name appears in royal charters up to 1157.14 Furie rmore, in 1158 she did play a role, with the king’s aunt, Sibylle of Flanders and a sister of Melisende, probably Yvetta, in the selection of the new patriarch, Amaur y of Nesle, prior of the Holy Sepulcher since 1151.1! Sometime after this point, however, by January 1160, Melise nde fell seriously ill, as recorded by William of [yre: “During this time Queen Melisende, . . . fell ill of an incurable disease for which there was no help except death,

Her two sisters, . . . watched over her with unremi tting care; the most skilful physicians to be found were summoned, and such remedies as were judge d best assidyu-

ously applied. . .. Now, wasted in body and somewhat impaired in memory, she had lain on her bed for a long

time as if dead, and very few were allow ed to see

her,7148 Queen Melisende died in Nablus on September 11, 1161.14 What she could not herself experience in the

last years of her life, she achieved in death when her

body was brought to Jerusalem to be buried at the Tomb of the Virgin in a mausoleum presumably commissioned by her in the 1150s and prepared under the supervision of King Baldwin III (Plates 8B.26a-8B.26d), 150 It may have been true that originally she hoped to be buried in the Templum Domini; at least her donations there far exceeded anything she gave to the Abbey of the Virgin in Jehoshaphat. Had she been buried there,

however, her tomb would have been more magni ficent

than those of the kings of Jerusalem in the Holy Sepulcher, something that Baldwin III could not counte-

nance.'>! There was, however, already a tradition of

burying queens near the Tomb of the Virgin, a practice that had begun in the early years of the twelft! entury and that was firmly established by the burial of

Melisende’s mother, Morphia, there in the late 7120s.122

As it was, her tomb chamber was quite magiiificent, located in association with the empty Tomb of the Virgin in Gethsemane (Plates 8B.27a-8B.27f).15 It is possible, even probable, as Bagatti and Piccirilio have

argued, that Queen Melisende herself sponsored the new decoration of the Tomb of the Virgin somet ime

before 1150.154 Now her own tomb was built at this holy site. William of Tyre guides us to the place:

“Queen Melisend . . . was buried in the valley of

Jehoshaphat on the right as one descends to the sepul-

cher of the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord. Her body rests in a stone crypt

with iron gates. Near by is an altar where mass is cele-

Church Tomb

Crusader

of of

:

the the

Virgin

hae 1

ae

Eo taperaybapetf lshrine- LY, ‘ ‘

§. e-eat't

pons

eee

ee

_TY Se ie Apeaght

Plate 8B.26a.

pe Suge

1936

Tomb of Queen Melisende, Jerusalem: plan

with location in the Tomb of the Virgin. (after Johns).

Plate 8B.26b. Tomb of Queen Melisende, Jerusalem — detail, decoration of the arch into the Tomb of Queen Melisende, with masons’ marks. (Photo: Savignac, Ecole

Biblique)

AW

i

Ee

ae Plate 8B.26c. Tomb of Queen Melisende, Jerusalem: east-west section of the Tomb of Queen Melisende (after A. Prodomo).

Plate 8B.26d. Tomb of Queen Melisende, Jerusalem: north-south section of the Tomb of Queen Melisende (after A. Prodomo).

Ss OS

SE

SS

JUPUALER at.

“TOMBEAU DE.LA ViERCE:; ca

2 a =- = 0.4 2-3

ETAT ACTUEL.

| 4 5 67

+ PLAN. 8 9 10

23 mans-24, juin 1925.

“

Wal

;1

1

_3.

,

ji :: Sh ate : i ith ‘es

las

Eutwation ne LA Baie DI

oot Plate 8B.27a.

and Abel).

Plate 8B.27b.

eR

és

i

die wkd raeana oa

Tomb of the Virgin in the Valley of Jehos haphat: plan (after Vincent

Tomb of the Vir-

gin in the Valley of Jehoshaphat:

entrance. (Photo: ELIA Photo Service, Jerusalem)

"

~

~~

yee! ePOMMS —


and to connect it to the confrontation of virtue and vice as seen on the first rectangular capital where the Virgin and an apostle face four armed demons. The imagery of the Psychomachia is no stranger to Crusader art, having already appeared ca. 1135 in the ivory covers of the Melisende Psalter; however, the specific iconography here, which features men armed with swords, wearing some kind of headdresses with lappets and fighting quite explicit demons, is unusual. Where could these large capitals have been placed and why was one preserved undamaged, whereas the others are so terribly broken, with major losses? It is clear that these capitals were intended to be placed ina different location from the polygonal capitals. This is evident not only from their architectural configuration and function as engaged capitals smooth on the back, but also from their form, strongly flaring from the drum to the architectural superstructure above, and the design of the figural scenes. The figures are focused on the front surface under the two main arches, and the vertical offset in the halo comparable to the head of the apostle on the Virgin capital clearly indicates that the viewer is meant to see these capitals at a different level from those of the baldacchino.'” The offset for the large capitals produces an optimum viewing angle from the floor of 58 degrees from the vertical, whereas for the smaller polygonal capitals, it is 42 degrees.'8 One is apparently meant to be closer to the polygonal capitals, that is, in the immediate proximity of the aedicule; the larger angle and larger

polygonal architectural configuration on top.!2! They are distinct because instead of the complex six-sided shape with a protruding “tongue” element behind, the

rectangular capitals are flat and smooth on their entire rear surface. These capitals present the most difficult archeological problems of the entire figural ensemble because, whereas one of the rectangular capitals is in pristine condition (see Plates 10.6a—10.6c), like the

polygonal capitals —- and even found together with them — there are two other badly broken rectangular capitals of exactly the same measurements that suffered the fate of much other sculpture that was heavily damaged when the church was razed by Baybars. The scenes depicted on these rectangular capitals also present certain problems. The first capital, in pristine condition, was found by Viaud in the excavations of 1908-1909 and has the most extraordinary iconography. On the front face of the capital under a doublearched architectural canopy is a representation of a majestic crowned female figure, carrying a cross staff, who is striding to the left (see Plates 10.6a-10.6c; Color Plate 34). She firmly holds the wrist of and leads a nimbed and bearded male figure who follows behind her. These figures make their perilous way in the midst of four threatening demons who brandish bows and arrows, swords and shields. This unique image seems undoubtedly to be a depiction of the Virgin leading an apostle through hell.!? A second rectangular capital, badly broken but now exhibited in the Convent of the Flagellation in Jerusalem,

was found by Bagatti during the excavations from 1955 to 1966. The story represented includes a female figure

reclining in bed, nude to the waist (see Plates 10.6d and

10.6e). Behind her bed stands a male figure gesturing with his right arm and hand. An additional male figure stands at the foot of the bed. There can be little doubt that this badly damaged capital represents another ver-

sion of Peter’s healing of the widow Tabitha in Jaffa, on a slightly larger scale and with an important change in

size of these rectangular capitals suggest they were

placed at a greater height and a greater distance from

the viewer. Among the various options, the most likely seems to be that these capitals were intended for the

engaged columns on the nave arcade.!2° To assess this

suggestion, we need to bring into the discussion

small and large capitals were found iy the Major exc. vations at Nazareth over the years. We aro left to won. der if much other work lies undiscoy. red, or wh ether

this other work was in fact done, for example, for the rest of the piers and the engaged capitals a long the side

walls, not to mentio

n the exterior portals. Whi another large capital that Bagatti reconstructed on the chever may be the case, the figural decoration of the interior engaged columns of the side walls and/or piers (see seems to have been the last sta ge in the rebuilding of Plate 10.6i).130 the Church of the Annunciation. The project was inte r. It is unclear from the extant fragments how many of rupted by Saladin’s incursion s aga ins t the these engaged acanthus capitals were intended or exeCrusaders, starting in 1182, after Renaud de Chatillon’s ill-adviseq cuted, but there must have been several.'3! The clear attack on a Moslem caravan tra veling from Damascus distinction between the decoration of the large figural to Mecca, a display of force that served to break the capitals and these acanthus capitals suggests strongly truce arranged in 1180. The projec t was definitively that the figural capitals were meant to be used in close ended by Saladin’s major invasi on of the Latin KingProximity to the aedicule, whereas the acanthus capidom, which resulted in the disast er at Hattin in July tals could have been used elsewhere throughout the 1187, and its aftermath. church. The reconstruction of the plan of the church, which indicates four cross-shaped piers setting off Whatever future research the proves to be the correct fifth and sixth bays in which the shrine-grotto inte rpretation, it must also be was pointed out that some located!%2 strongly suggests that the figural additional important sculpture capitals remains that has not as were meant to be placed on those piers and yet been successfully located on the seen in church as we know conjunction with the aedicule. it. The following fragments are among the most promiIt is evident that the capital with the Virgi nent and problematic examples: n leading an apostle through hell, visually echoing the Anastasis 1 Pride of place goes to the first of Christ, was meant to be closely assoc sculptures from iated with the Nazareth ever discovered, in cult of the Virgin, the liturgy of the Annu 1867 — the paired, nciation durbearded heads now in the Museum ing the Lenten and Easter season, and of the Greek therefore the Orthodox Patriarchate (see Plate 10.7) shrine-grotto.133 The scene of St. Peter .136 and Tabitha is 2 A number of small figural fragment also relevant in terms of specifying s have been the particular claimed to belong to other polygonal importance of Peter for this site, as capitals (see the apostle most Plate 10.8).137 prominently associated in tradition with the establish3 There is also a badly damaged double ment of a church to the Virgin here capital with in Nazareth. It is winged animals, for a corner emplacement easy to conceive of reconstructing these (see Plate two capitals on the faces of the two cruciform piers 10.9).138 on the north side of 4 Finally, large amounts of architectura the nave facing the aedicule.134 The l sculpture, relevance of the “Psychomachia” battle imagery to mostly fragmentary, survive in the form of moldi the shrine-grotto is ngs, less obvious, but symbolic conflict fragments of capitals, portions of foliate carvings, of good and evil may have related to the context and vault components (see Plate 10.10).'°° of confrontation The interbetween the Crusaders and Islam Pret ation, location, and full attribution of in the Holy Land.135 these Perhaps this capital was placed important pieces of sculpture to specific near the scene of the parts of the Virgin leading an apostle through program await further research on the excav hell, either on the ation of south face of one of the cruciform the remarkably richly decorated Church piers on the north of the side of the nave, or on one of the Annunciation at Nazareth,140 cruciform piers on the south side of the nave. It remains to consider the sculptural material It is not possible at present to kno from w why the Virgin the point of view of what the style can tell us about the leading an apostle capital is undama ged and the two sculptors, as well as the controversial issue of others were so severely broken. Suff the datice it to say that for ing of this project. Traditionally the Nazareth sculpture reasons unknown, some scul ptural decoration, as dishas been viewed as French Romanesque tinct from the basic structural esse work and ntials of the aedicule assoc iated especially with Burgundy, Plaimpied, and chambers and the surrounding piers, may have been the Ile de France. 141 The serious suggestion was made delayed in execution and never been put in place. Furin the 1920s that the five Nazareth capitals were thermore, it is truly mysterious exewhy only these selected cuted in France and shipped to the Holy Land, so

emphatic was this perception after their discovery.142 We now know that this is impossible, not only because th as

tals were carved from local stone but also the volume of material recovered from the

excavation and the complexity of the project would hat

sty

de such an arrangement unfeasible, and the

onception of the figural sculpture is Crusader,

no

cn.

gel

»rmal analysis of the Nazareth sculpture has d complex interpretations from the beginning.

Be:

re view that the work was executed by French

sculptors deriving from Burgundy, Plaimpied, and/or

the le de France, we have had substantial refinement in the expansion of possible French sources to include

the Rhone Valley and especially Vienne.43 There have also been sophisticated suggestions advocating a distanced relationship between Nazareth and the various French sources, which proposes to see the sculptors as

Crusaders, that is, local resident Frankish artists, perhaps trained by French masters.'# With these discussions in mind, it is also important to consider more

fully the local Crusader ambiente in which this sculpture was carried out. That is, what Crusader ties can we see to the large and important workshop at Nazareth,

Plate 10.12a. fragment.

Mt. Tabor, sculptural fragments: aedicule roof

and what do these sculptural affiliations tell us about the artists who were active in the Nazareth project? It is apparent from what survives in the Latin Kingdom that Alan Borg was correct to restate the existence of linkage between the workshop of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and that at Nazareth." It is also evi-

dent that we can see strong if limited parallels between the work done at Nazareth and Belvoir Castle,#° and some direct ties with work at the monastery church on Mt. Tabor (Plates 10.12a and 10.12b).147 Finally, the

largest and most important workshop in Jerusalem toward the end of the third quarter of the twelfth century was working for the Templars in Jerusalem on the Haram, and even there too, we can look for relation-

ships to Nazareth-style sculpture. in 1982, Borg pointed out the affinities between the famous Solomon capital in the north gallery of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (see Plates 7.6b-7.6e),

with the Temptation of Christ capital at Plaimpied and the Nazareth capitals (see Plates 10.5a-10.5m, 10.6a). The Jerusalem capital has an architectural canopy over the figure of the king, seated on a dragon throne, and foliate elements at the corners. It is immediately evident that the links between Plaimpied and the Jerusalem capital are also close. Consider that the basic

configuration of the architectural canopy on the

Jerusalem capital, with the basic central arch and two towers with two tiers at the corners, is closely comparable to that on the Plaimpied capital in design, decora-

Plate 10.12b. Mt. Tabor, sculptural fragments: small figure fragment with polychromy. (Photo: Z. Jacoby)

tion with dentils, form, and relationship of parts. The Jerusalem architecture is slightly more developed, however, with a tower element at the apex of the arch not found at Plaimpied, and with the exedra above and behind the arch fully articulated, whereas nothing

comparable is found at Plaimpied. The drum behind

receive mastic decoration, in contrast to the smooth

surfaces of the Jerusalem capitals.

the figure of Solomon is round, as is that behind Christ

Borg argued that the relationship between the

at Plaimpied, but the Christ seems to be much the more dynamic of the two figures. This may be a misleading result of the severe damage the Solomon capital has suffered,148 however, as the contours of the poses of the two figures are similar, and, as Borg has proposed, both sit on dragon thrones of sorts. Finally, we also note the use of round-tipped leaf foliage to articulate the front from the side faces in both cases. Similar architectural canopies are also used on two pilaster capitals flanking the door from the ambulatory of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to the

Jerusalem and the Nazareth capitals is also close to those at Vienne, primarily in the nave of the cathedral

of St. Maurice, and secondarily in the Church of St. André le Bas. Jacoby and, much earlier, Porter, referreg to the Vienne connection as well, but mainly in terms

of figure style. The view of the present author is that in terms of the architectural canopies, the scalloped bases of the capitals, and the use of textured backgrounds for mastic decoration, as well as the figure style, the

cases, of course, there is essentially only the one front

Nazareth capitals derive their ancestry from Vienne and especially the nave capitals of St. Maurice, through Jerusalem. The Vienne and Nazareth examples are also

face, but the configuration is similar to that on the

related to Plaimpied, but Borg argued that Plaimpied

Solomon capital. Particularly notable is the tower element over the apex of the arch they hold in common. The pilaster capitals are slightly different, however, in introducing two cylindrical dropped elements below the towers at the sides — possibly originally capitals for colonettes? — and above the arch arcading links the central tower with those at the sides, and the sculptor has eliminated the articulation of the exedra behind. Clearly this type of architectural superstructure can be compared more closely with certain capitals in the

and Nazareth both found their roots in Vienne, not

canons’ cloister (see Plates 7.4b and 7.4c). In these two

somewhere else.'*° For example, careful study of the architectural canopies found on the west front of

Chartres or on the south portal at Etampes indicates that these are generic comparisons; the Nazareth capitals are not related directly to either monument in any specific way.'5! Thus, if we recognize the relationship of the’ Nazareth capitals to these examples at Jerusalem, Vienne, and Plaimpied, we can move to consider where else the Nazareth style appears in the Latin Kingdom and who the artists may have been who did this work. The second project that seems to be related to Nazareth is the sculpture from the castle of Belvoir.!= We can discuss this relationship if we compare the corbel with the smiling boy’s head (see Plate 9.36c) or the engaged capital with the bearded head (see Plates 9.36d

Cathedral of St. Maurice, Vienne, than at Plaimpied.'

The figural parts of the capitals include a vertical blessing hand to the left (northwest) and a frontal eagle to the right (southeast) of the door, but both are broken and/or abraded.

When comparing the Nazareth capitals to these three in the Holy Sepulcher, it is immediately apparent that significant development has occurred. At Nazareth the artist was called on to design architectural canopies for a polygonal, not just a rectangular configuration. Thus he adapted the scheme of the round arch flanked by two towers, but he alters the towers, “dropping” their front corners to create a perspectival effect very different from that of the capitals in Jerusalem. A slightly different ornamental vocabulary is employed with significant increase in the use of the drill to create a richer positive-negative architectural design. Furthermore, the drum is no longer conventionally round or flat, but scooped out behind the figures to create the mugarnas effect. The figures are much more dynamic and liberated in terms of their ability to twist and move in the “space” created by the arch and scooped-out drum, compared to the static handling of the Jerusalem representations. The framing articulation of the faces is handled in terms of patterned geometric forms instead

and 9.36e) from Belvoir with certain Nazareth bearded

heads and the Nazareth engaged capital with the smiling demon. In contrast to the closer ties of the Nazareth capitals to the capitals in the Holy Sepulcher, the linkage with Belvoir is of a much more genera! nature. We see at Belvoir experimentation with human faces that animate architectural members. We see at Nazareth comparably animated faces that share some of the same formal characteristics, even if they were done by different artists for different patrons. For example, the face of the smiling boy shows the characteristics of almost geometric clarity in the modeling of the face, in the relation

of the drilled eyeball to the eyelids, in the tightly wound, substantially three-dimensiona!, but patternized locks of hair. The emotive expressiveness is par-

alleied at Nazareth by the faces of the demons ‘rom the Virgin capital and by the faces of the king anc his son on face 1 of the St. Matthew capital (see Plates 10.6b,

10.6c, 10.5k). The creative near-metamorphosis of the engaged capital into a head when seen from the front is

of foliate elements. Finally, we note at Nazareth the tex-

tured background surface of the faces prepared to

438

manifestly achieved at Belvoir, whereas at Nazareth, the

and that some of the Nazareth sculptures were never installed, suggesting that the project was definitively interrupted, for which event 1187 has almost unanimously been considered the terminus ante quem. We

“wooden” eyeballs at Belvoir finds no exact parallels in the paired bearded heads at Nazareth (see Plate 10.7) or the myriad examples on the capitals, but, again, the

must also weigh in relation to these factors, on the one

basic parallelism of their artistic goals is apparent. In sum, the Belvoir examples help us to see that contemporary sculpture was being done outside of Jerusalem not so far from Nazareth that is similar, but done by different artists. The comparison clarifies for us how tightly related the Nazareth sculptures are among themselves and demonstrates that the Nazareth workshop, while probably employing several sculptors, was

Maurice, Plaimpied, Jerusalem, and Nazareth, with, on the other, the idea that whereas Vienne and Plaimpied may be relevant as stylistic sources, the Nazareth master was Frankish and learned from a Rhone Valley artist in the Latin Kingdom.

nonetheless firmly managed and produced a highly homogeneous result. The sculpture from Mt. Tabor is related to Nazareth

capital is precisely the fact that, although these French

face is only a small mask applied to the architectural member, but the basic idea is shared by both. The fuller rounder face with patterned furrows and pierced

differently. In the first place, only two relevant fragments exist, including the tabernacle roof and the diminutive leg and booted foot of a male figure set against a flat background (see Plates 10.12a and 10.12b).!5 In the second place, these fragments are so

close stylistically as to seem to belong to the same workshop that executed the Nazareth sculpture. The tabernacle roof fragment not only shows strong parallels to the architecture of the church held by St. Peter (see Plate 10.4h), but the spirit of the foliate articulation of the roof and the “doughnut” decoration of the tower is comparable to the outer voussoirs of the western portal. The small fragment is particularly interesting, because whereas it is obviously the leg of an elegant figure like the kings and sorcerers from the St. Matthew capital, it is also the only fragment extant with significant evidence of polychromy on it.! It is difficult to characterize the sculpture at Mt. Tabor on the basis of so few samples, given the fact that we know so little about exactly when the rebuilding took place there and when sculptural work may have been done subsequenily.'5 Nonetheless it is clear that some sculpture done there was closely related to the work at Nazareth and may have been done at about the same time.

The vexed question of dating the Nazareth sculpture has in the past largely hinged on the relationship

between Nazareth and the stylistic developments in France identified to be the most relevant, and thus ranged mainly over the period 1150-1187. It is now apparent, however, that the French sources of the

Nazareth style are quite varied; that their dating is not necessarily a matter of consensus; that the Nazareth

sculptures were only done in the context of the rebuild-

ing of the Church of the Annunciation, for which effort a date after the earthquake of 1170 has been proposed;

hand, the interesting recent proposal of Alan Borg, to see the hand of the same French sculptor working at St.

The strongest evidence against the identification of the Nazareth master with the artist of the St. Maurice nave capitals or the Plaimpied Temptation of Christ examples are indeed similar and provide important ancestry for the later developments at Nazareth, they are not close enough in stylistic terms to warrant attribution to the same hand. We have already noted certain typological characteristics held in common between the nave capitals of St. Maurice and the Nazareth capitals. We have also already commented on the carving of the architectural superstructure of those capitals, noting the contrast between what appears to be direct linkage and more generic comparisons. We can also see at St. Maurice other important aspects for which there are strong later manifestations at Nazareth. At St. Maurice, consider the following parallels with Nazareth sculpture: the handling of the heads of demons found on the Harrowing of Hell capital at St. Maurice (south nave, pier 8, east face) can be compared to the rich variety of examples found on the Nazareth capitals.!57 The zodiacal animals from the Nazareth voussoirs can be compared with those in the zodiac nave frieze of St. Maurice.'* The seated figures of kings David and Solomon in Vienne are interesting to compare with King Eglypus on the St. Matthew capital in Nazareth.® The iconography of Christ Harrowing Hell from St. Maurice has already been discussed in relationship to the image of the Virgin leading an apostle through hell. And the style of the large seated figure of St. Peter, now in the Musée Lapidaire, as well as those found in St. Maurice, including St. John and a figure identified as “St. Paul,” now in the north foyer near the cloister portal, have been compared to the Chatsworth Torso.!*! This vocabulary of form is obviously basic to what we

we see atNazareth is rendered th, but what see at Nazare differently in important ways. It is different because of a

different context and patron, because of a different visual environment of artistic form, because of developments from the sources, and, most important because the Frank-

ish Nazareth artist was, in all likelihood, different from

the French master from whom he learned. These differences can be further objectified if we contemplate the contrasts among the comparable seated figures of two kings from St. Maurice, the Christ from Plaimpied, King Solomon from the Holy Sepulcher, and King Eglypus at Nazareth. The Kings Solomon from Vienne and Jerusalem share with the Plaimpied Christ and King Eglypus similar aspects of pose in the positioning of the legs and the emphatic gestures, as we have discussed above. However, the prominence of the torso varies among the examples; the handling of the drapery as linear patterns and bulbous forms differs in these cases, as do the proportions of the head to the body and the relative dynamism of the figure, even in this seated position. Also, the relative plasticity of these figures varies not only in how deeply they have been undercut but also how they relate to the drum behind them and to the space created by the architectural configuration under which they sit. We are forced to conclude from this and other such figural comparisons that if the artist(s) of St. Maurice and Plaimpied came to the

Holy Land and worked at Jerusalem and Nazareth, he would have designed and carved sculpture for the Church of the Annunciation that looked much more similar to what he had done in the Rhéne Valley.!2 In addition to these analytical aspects, what other differences can we see? Scholars have noted non-French features in the Nazareth sculptures, variously identified as “German” (de Lasteyrie), “Apulian-Lombard” (Porter), “Byzantine” (Enlart), “Syrian-Hellenistic” (Boase), and “Frankish, influenced by late antique, Byzantine, Syrian and Islamic” (Pace).!®3 These references vary in regard to just what was non-French. For de Lasteyrie it was the Semitic physiognomies of these strikingly elongated heads, as well as details such as

headdresses and the folds that were “German” on the chest and knees. For Porter, what was “Lombard” was the stylistic admixture found in Provencal aspects of Vienne work as well as the Lombard supporting figures, familiar as lions on church porches. Enlart sees the Nazareth drapery style as having a genuine, if general, “Byzantine” influence to it, referring presumably to the articulated relationship of garment and body. The “Syrian-Hellenistic” aspect identified by Boase refers to the parallels he saw between the Greco-Roman Palmyrene portraits and the Nazareth head types. Finally, Pace

argued that the local, that is, late antique, Byzantine, Syrian, and Islamic visual ambiente accounts for the differ-

tric scholars who have found only French characteris.

tics in these Nazareth sculptures,1+ nonetheless most

have expressed by such “foreign” comparisons their sensitivity to differences from pure French work, It is

this sense of difference that, however difficult it has been to specify, demonstrates in our view the origin of

the particularities that characterize the Nazareth artis.

tic style in the Frankish East. It is a tribute to these Vari-

ous scholars that, however deeply immersed they may have been in their own research on Western medieval art in the twelfth century, they were perceptive enough

to see the special Crusader artistic concepts expressed

in the Nazareth sculpture and that they attempted to break out of their own familiar frame of reference and sought other comparanda to help characterize and

describe what was unique and different. Finally, what are the reasons for the outpouring of sculpture at Nazareth in the 1170s, unlike other Crusader artistic projects at major holy sites? Clearly the

patron, Archbishop Letard II, had to have been a major factor in making the decision to choose the

sculptural program.!® However, this decision was possible because the archbishop had the financial

means to do it, the materials were close at hand in local quarries, and it was feasible to hire requisite

sculptors and masons to do the work. Some of these artists may have come from Jerusalem, where large sculpture ateliers had existed since the 1140s for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Hospitalers, and the projects around the Templum Domini, or from Belvoir, where a major fortification had been completed about 1170 and that also had some impressive figural sculpture, as we have seen. It is very likely that some of the sculptors and masons were also local Franks born in Nazareth. However, clearly other factors played a role as well. Nazareth compared to Jerusalem was a small town, much less multicultural as a context than Jerusalem or

Bethlehem, with fewer competing claims on the holy site from the other major communities, such as the Greek Orthodox, the Syrians, and the Armenians. The archbishop at Nazareth thus had freedom to make different artistic choices, not only because of his context and his

greater individual and personal control of the site but also

because of the nature of the site itself. Unlike the Holy Sepulcher or the Church of the Nativity, Nazareth was

more substantially a “new” project in the sense that it did not continue older Byzantine undertakings,

whether

rebuilding or expanding ecclesiastical buildings or seeing

ences in figural and ornamental forms of the Nazareth sculpture when compared to their French antecedents in the Rhone Valley and Burgundy. ; Although there have continued to be some eurocen-

to their redecoration. Letard was rebuilding and enlarg-

ing after 1170 the small Crusader church, originally built just after the First Crusade, that had replaced the even smaller Byzantine structure over the holy site. The focus

440

of this new building campaign in the 1170s was to aedicule over the grotto, and for this and his new dral, Letard chose to commission a lavish program ural and architectural sculpture.!© This choice was ble for the reasons stated above, but it was most

be the

catheof figpossilikely

conceived because of Letard’s wish to distinguish the site of the Annunciation artistically and programmatically from the sites of the Holy Sepulcher and the Nativity of

Christ. By shrewd use of the artistic means at his disposal, Letard enlarged and decorated the architectural configuration of this major holy site in a fitting and proper manner. He also specifically asserted the importance and

uniqueness of the cathedral and shrine of the Annunciation in terms of this distinctive sculptural proclamation of the Incarnation and the cult of the Virgin, namely, that it was one of the three holiest places in Christendom that could be visited in the Latin Kingdom.

Given the artistic creativity of the sculptors at Nazareth, their distinctive style and their capability to do such high-quality work, it is striking that we do not see them working elsewhere in the Latin Kingdom after Nazareth. Recall that the Church of the Annunciation and in particular the shrine monument at the holy site in Nazareth was in fact never finished but instead was interrupted by the threat and then the outright invasion of Saladin in the 1180s. Furthermore, with the loss of most of the Latin Kingdom in the aftermath of Hattin in 1187, these sculptors would have had no immediate opportunity to work again in the Crusader States. In the absence of any explicit documentation of their later endeavors we can only regret that no later work from the hands of these masters has as yet been identified.’ If, however, as we have proposed, these sculptors were Frankish, they no doubt stayed in the Holy Land, or at least in the Latin East, and did not leave for western Europe. Thus it would be only after the Third Crusade

the Ascension from the 1140s on. Partly developing out of and in relation to these ateliers was yet another important and independent masons’ yard, which was located on the Haram. Although almost nothing remains intact because of the efforts of Saladin and later Moslem sultans to purge the Haram of Crusader buildings,'* a significant amount of architectural sculpture exists as spolia in reuse, which was originally carved by Crusader sculptors in and around the Templum Salomonis, Templar headquarters, and the Templum Domini, the church marking the holy site of the Presentation in the Temple.'” The pilgrim accounts of John of Wiirzburg (ca. 1170) and Theodorich (ca. 1174) indicate that the Templars had commissioned a major building campaign on the south end of the Haram, adjacent to the Templum Salomonis in the 1160s. This construction greatly impressed Theodorich, writing ca. 1174. Speaking of the Palace of Solomon, he said: Like a church it is oblong and supported by pillars, and also at the end of the sanctuary it rises up to a circular roof, large and round, and also like a church. This and all its neighbouring buildings have come into the possession of the Templar soldiers. . . . Below them they have stables once erected by King Solomon. . .. We should bear witness that they will hold ten thousand horses with their grooms. A single shot from a cross-bow would hardly reach from one end of this building to the other, either in length or breadth. Above them the area is full of houses, dwellings and outbuildings for every kind of purpose, and it is full of walkingplaces, lawns, council-chambers, porches, consistories and supplies of water in splendid cisterns. . . . On the other side of the palace, that is on the west, the Templars have built a new house, whose height, length and breadth, and all its cellars and refectories, staircase and roof, are far beyond the custom of this land. Indeed its roof is so high that, if 1 were to mention how high it is, those

who listen would hardly believe me. There indeed they

had regained Acre in 1192 that new commissions might have appeared in the Latin Kingdom. It remains to be seen if any work by their hands may be recognized in Acre or elsewhere as research continues.’

have constructed a new Palace, just as on the other side

they have the old one. There too they have founded on the edge of the outer court a new church of magnificent size and workmanship."7!

Nazareth was the most important center for the production of Crusader figural sculpture in the period

Clearly this was a massive building campaign and we cannot be surprised that there is so much spolia from Templar construction that must have included a large church and cloisters and for the new palace, dormitories, refectories, kitchens, and storerooms. It was a very large monastery complex that was being built in the southwest corner of the Haram, for which much exquisite decorative sculpture was carved. Because it was a project sponsored by the Templars, we shall call this atelier the Templar workshop,’” to distinguish it from sculpture done for others on the Haram, for example, that of the Austin canons north of the Tem-

between 1170 and 1187, and indeed in the entire twelfth

century. It was not, however, the only major site where large amounts of top-quality sculpture was being done after 1170. The other place was Jerusalem.

The Templar Workshop in Jerusalem We have already encountered sculpture from important workshops associated with the Holy Sepulcher, the Hospitaler quarter, and the Templum Domini/ Church of 441

Merah

2

Se

plum Domini,’ and from sculpture elsewhere in the city, earlier in the Hospitaler quarter,!”4 and later for royal patrons.!75 Having gotten under way in the 1160s,'’° the Templar project, presumably begun with the remodeling of the porch of the al-Aqsa Mosque as _ well as the commencement of significant new buildings, was still incomplete by 1174,!77 and thus was

aE,

Mosque as panels or mihrab cap als (Plates —_10.14a—10.14d), as conchoid mane arcades in the Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of ane Rock, an 1 as panels and capitals reused as the entrance to ace "Vell of Souls in the Dome of the Rock (Plates 10.15a-10.15; This sculpture includes the most exqui ite predomi-

nantly nonfigural decorative work execute

d by Cry. started before but was also partly contemporary with _ sader artists. Buschhausen and Jacoby have outlined the Nazareth project. the major features, which are included it my discysBecause the sculpture executed by the Templar sion below. First (see Plates 10.13a—10. 15d), this sculpworkshop is now in such fragmentary condition, so lit- _ ture is primari ly foliate and Ornamental, and there ig a tle of it is in situ and is mostly spolia in reuse, and hierarchy by which the foliation dominates and orga-

because there is so much of it, we must select exam-

_ nizes the mostly

smaller representations of fauna and ples, most of which now survive in and around the humans. The fundamental foliate form employed isa Aqsa Mosque and in the Dome of the Rock, to characfleshy, slender-leafed acanthus with spiky tips. In the terize the range and quality of the work. The most __best work the spiky tips separate the leaves along the important pieces are marble. They are found rearranged __ sides; in less accomplished work, they link them as and reused to form the Dikka in the Aqsa Mosque abstract joins. The acanthus leaves curve in a graceful

(Plates 10.13a—-10.13w), on the south wall of the Agsa

spiraling movement that is, at once, a pronounced and

= = =

Plate 10.13a.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

Plate 10.13b.

The Dikka — view, looking northwest.

ss ——eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeaeaeaeaaeES=Seea DQG, ————— Se

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

The Dikka — view looking southwest.

442

|

Plate 10.13c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, north side, east end.

Plate 10.13d. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, east side,

north end.

Plate 10.13e. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, east side, south end.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: Plate 10.13f. The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, south side, east end.

TUE

Jie

Jie

ie

tae

Plate 10.13h. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — balustrade and cornice, south side, west end.

see

SET AMY

Plate 10.133, Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mos que

al-Aqsa: The Dikka — b,alustrade and cornice, west side, south end.

|

Plate 10.13). Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka - capitals and abaci: triplex capitals and column s, northwest end.

Plate 10.13g. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalen Mosque al-Agga: T Dikka — balustrade and cornice, south he side , central Se ction,

).13k.

Tt

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

ikka — capitals and abaci: single capital, central north

Plate 10.131. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: triplex capitals and columns,

northeast end.

So

Hi if f

|

| ii

ae Se ao)

ie

iate 10.13m. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Agsa: he Dikka — capitals and abaci: view of triplex capitals and tral capital, south side.

Plate 10.13n.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

The Dikka — capitals and abaci, detail: triplex capital on southeast corner.

xe

Plate 10.130.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

Plate 10.13p. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mos que alAqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: triplex capit als, southw est

The Dikka — capitals and abaci: single capital, central south side.

end.

Plate 10.13q. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mos que al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: detail, southwest corner abacus (eagle’s head).

Plate 10.13r. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa : The Dikka — capitals and abaci: detail, southwest corner

Plate 10.13s. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: The Dikka — capitals and abaci: detail, southwest corner abacus (ram’s head).

abacus (capped man’s head).

446

OVO OL OMONE

13t. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: ikka — platform slab, underside with Fatimid carving.

Plate 10.13v.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Agsa:

The Dikka — detail, lion on balustrade, north side, west end.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa: Plate 10.13u. The Dikka — balustrade, north side, central section.

4a

le

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque Plate 10.13w. al-Aqsa: The Dikka - capitals and abaci: triplex capitals, northwest end.

| |

| | |

Plate 10.14a. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem. Mosque al-Aqsa: reused sculpture — |; re south wall panel.

Plate 10.14b.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa:

reused sculpture — small south wall panel.

‘ei

%]

Plate 10.14d. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque alAgsa: reused sculpture — Saladin Mihrab capital, east side.

bi

Plate 10.14c. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Mosque al-Aqsa : reused sculpture — Saladin Mihrab capital, west side.

448

Plate 10.15a.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the

Rock: reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, view.

Plate 10.15b. Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock: reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, tympanum.

449

Plate 10.15c.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock:

reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, capital on the left side.

Plate 10.15d.

Haram al Sharif, Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock:

reused sculpture — entry to the Well of Souls, capital on the right side.

characteristic manner that emphasizes their convex three-dimensionality and makes them resemble damp drapery, causing them sometimes to be called wet-leaf

Fourth, a certain classicism in the forms is expressed not only in the use of the acanthus but also in the

acanthus. Although naturalistic in their liveliness, the

truly impressive. Without doubt, in the twelfth century, the Templar workshop achieved the most elegant and distinctive Crusader foliate sculpture in terms of ornament and pattern, just as the Nazareth atelier succeeded in creating the most expressively dynamic representations of the human figure at approximately the same time. Crusader Levantine-Romanes«ue sculpture

forms’ order, harmony, clarity, and balance, which are

acanthus leaves are abstractly smooth and simplified in form, almost geometrically regularized and beautifully patternized in their rendering. By contrast with the three-dimensional acanthus leaves, the vine tendrils are flat, abstract, and linear.

Second, the foliate decoration is imaginatively hybrid, because associated with the handsome acan-

climaxed in these two workshops, which produced an

thus leaves at the heart of this repertoire, one finds

expressive classicism in Jerusalem and a ‘assic expressivism in Nazareth. Fifth, the admiration expressed by »dorich for the workmanship is reflected not only ii) the elegant design but also in the range of architect:iral components that were given, or associated wii!:, the wet-leafacanthus decoration. We have an exteris've array in many sizes, including, panels, lintels, abaci (for single,

“pine cones” growing out of common stalks, and a variety of floral medallions emerging from leafy scroll designs.!”6 These two characteristics of style and repertoire distinguish the Crusader wet-leaf acanthus from other general classicizing comparanda. Third, the compositions of the acanthus foliage are

typically symmetrical, and where extended by tendrils, continuous. Paradoxically, on the one hand, the movement of the spiraling acanthus leaves gives the forms an apparent dynamism that is, on the other hand, contained in static symmetry and a remarkable sense of sophisticated pattern, realized in both light and shade, and curvilinear flow and definition.

double, and triple capitals), capitals (sing

clustered —

double and triple — and engaged), ornamental and interlaced columns (single, and in double and triple clusters), column bases, cupolas, arcaded conchoid

niches, and small arches (single and trefoil in shape).'” These sculptures appear to have been done for much

450

hurch furniture, cloisters, and some larger-scale archi-

is an eaglelike design — an upright stalk with one to three tiers of displayed acanthus leaves topped by an acanthus leaf “head” (e.g., see Plate 10.13c). In these cases the head is consistently acanthus, whereas in most other examples from this workshop, a “pinecone” is used, as on the impressive large panel set into the south wall of the Aqsa Mosque (see Plate 10.14a), which may have been used for altar decoration. The variations in the five different renderings of the upright acanthus design are echoed in the subtle variety of the vine-scroll acanthus as it flows outward from those vertical stalks. The tendrils move from single to double and even triple spiraling forms, with acanthus, floral, and even animal forms to articulate the centers and interstices of the undulating acanthus. These vinescroll patterns clearly echo the lintel from the south transept portal of the Holy Sepulcher, but here there is greater control of the design, less of an instinct for the horror vacui, more interest in the elegance of the foliate forms, and much less emphasis on animal and human representations. But the animal and human imagery, if understated, is there. Consider the lion inside the tendrils on the north side balustrade panel (see Plates 10.13u and 10.13v),'*° consider the profile birds in the interstices of the south side panel (see Plate 10.13h), and consider the numerous figures or animals broken away on the west end (see Plate 10.13i). Surviving human figures and other animals are more readily found on the abaci and capitals of the supporting members. Whereas many abaci have the pine-cone and acanthus, or crossed-acanthus designs so characteristic of this atelier, as many as three or possibly four male visages, all now defaced, are found on

tural decoration, apparently excluding monumental -ortal projects.!8 Finally, within the design framework of order and

nmetry, there is a clear expression of diversity and en playful imbalance. Examination of the Dikka, the

)st important extant ensemble of Templar atelier sculpture in the Aqsa, will make this clear.!§! The Dikka, or prayer platform, as we see it today is a mod-

n construction using Crusader materials.'* It is conigured as a rectangular dais supported by clustered -apitals and columns at the corners and single capitals with columns at approximately the midpoints of the long sides (see Plates 10.13a and 10.13b). The platform itself is enclosed with a low balustrade set off by a thin bead and reel molding above, and a more robust eggand-flower cornice molding below (see Plates 10.13c-10.13i). We assume that these handsomely carved components formed part of the decoration of the new Templar church mentioned by John of Wiirzburg and Theodorich and are reused close to their original site. Viewed from a distance, the Dikka appears to be a unified and monumental piece of “furniture.” Analyzed at close range, however, it is in fact made up of numerous fragments carefully joined to give the impression of wholeness. For example, the balustrade consists of fourteen pieces that make up the panels decorated with the wet-leaf acanthus design, the longest of which is 1.94 m and the shortest, 7 cm (see Plates 10.13c—10.13i, 10.13u,

10.13v). Similarly, the cornice is made up of sixteen pieces, of which the longest is 1.45 m and the shortest, 11.7 cm. The platform itself is made up of five slabs, all ca. 1.34 m long and ranging from 59 cm wide to 83 cm

the southeast triplex capital (see Plate 10.13n), and on

the southwest triplex abacus we find a bearded and capped male head on the northwest corner, as well as

wide (see Plates 10.13a, 10.13b, 10.13t).!83 All of the abaci

consist of a single piece of stone, but the clustered capitals are variously assembled. Those under the southeast

the heads of an eagle and a ram (see Plates 10.13q-10.13s).

(see Plates 10.13m and 10.13n), southwest (see Plates

Such remnants are also found on the entrance portal to

10.13p-10.13q), and northwest (see Plate 10.13}) corners

the Well of Souls in the Dome of the Rock (see Plate

10.15a), where the abacus above the left side capital has

are carved from one piece of stone, but those under the northeast (see Plate 10.131) corner are three separate capitals cut down to be placed together." These numerous fragments provide evidence for a huge amount of Crusader sculpture from the Templar workshop, destroyed and partly reused as spolia. The size of these components on the Dikka and the scale of the decoration on them suggest that they may well have been originally used for some kind of church furniture. Obviously the foliate acanthus design pre-

a conspicuous large-eared, demonic(?) face (see Plate

10.15c), and the right side abacus has a pendant beardless head (see Plate 10.15d).!** Above, in the lintel panel of the tympanum, the central upright acanthus design also includes the partial wings of two birds or angels now missing (see Plate 10.15b)!!*7 One final feature of these remarkable sculptures concerns the columns. We cannot know for sure whether all of the extant columns are originally Crusader work or not. We can, however, be certain that the patterns of and on these columns, that is, the fluting, the twisted flutes, and the decorative designs, were originally intended. The evidence for this is found in

dominates on the balustrade (e.g., see Plate 10.13g), the abaci (e.g., see Plate 10.13n), and the capitals (e.g., see

Plate 10.13p). On the balustrade, in fact, we find multi-

ple examples of the signature design of the acanthus. It

451

the diminutive fluted and twisted columns found at the east and west end of the south side balustrade panels of the Dikka (see Plate 10.13e), as well as the interlaced columns of the large south wall panel (see Plate

10.14a), the fluted and decorated columns supporting the prayer platform itself (see Plates 10.13a, 10.13b, 10.13j), the interlaced triple columns of the Ibrahim mihrab in the Dome of the Rock,!8* the highly ornamental columns from the balustrade of the Saladin Mihrab in the Aqsa,*? and the columns for the arcaded

conchoid niches with their cylindrical shape, but coloristically patternized stone.!% The efforts to track down and publish all the fugitive pieces of sculpture stylistically related to the Templar workshop has also resulted in finds from an unexpectedly large number of sites away from the Haram, where usually a few, or even in a few cases, many fragments have been found together, mostly in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Important pieces are now to be seen in the Tomb of the Virgin (see Plates 8B.27a-8B.27f); there

are the two capitals from Latrun now in Istanbul (Plates 10.16a-10.16g); and storerooms of the Holy Sepulcher, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the Greek

Plate 10.16a.

Orthodox at Gethsemane, and the Fra:

Convent of the Flagellation have all yielded ma amples,191 Each piece must be considered separate! t this evidence suggests that although the Templar y orkshop was established at the Templum Salomo luring the period from the later 1160s to the 1180s, some of the sculptors worked elsewhere briefly or took on commis. sions for other projects. Nazareth had the other major workshop active at this time, but because these two workshops were in business more or less simultaneously, we do not find very much direct linkage between them.!°2 A few parallels are, however, worth noting. The acanthus leaf dec-

oration on the roof of the Mt. Tabor tabernacle frag-

ment (see Plate 10.12a) has clear ties to the Templar wet-leaf acanthus style. A fragment of a holy water basin found in Nazareth features the decoration of the pine cone on the acanthus-leafed stalk.!93 An abacus from Mt. Tabor reminds us of the acanthus leaf and

pine-cone vocabulary, iconographically and formally, as compared to abaci from Templar-workshop-related work. One triplex capital on the Dikka has scalloped

bases and mates with fluted columns

Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 1. (Photo: Istanbul, National

Archeological Museum)

452

(see Plate

=

tek Se be =

Plate 10.16b Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 1 detail of the abacus with two heads — female and bearded male. (Photo: Istanbul, National

Archeological Museum)

Plate 10.16c.

Latrun capitals: triplex capital,

1, detail of the abacus with two heads — boy and an owl. (Photo: Istanbul, National Archeological Museum)

Plate 10.16d. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 1, detail of the abacus with two heads — bearded male with a cap, and a ram. (Photo: Istanbul, National Archeological Museum)

453

an

Plate 10.16e.

Latrun capitals:

2, view with dog or wolf.

| plex capital

(Photo: Istanbul,

National Archeological Museum)

‘

Plate 10.16f. Latrun capitals: triplex capital, 2, view with side view of bird. (Photo: Istanbul, National Archeological Museum)

Plate 10.16g.

“~~~:

Latrun capitals: triplex ca

Istanbul, National Archeological Museum)

454

ital,

«2, view with paired frontal eagles. (Photo:

0.13w), \nd the ncave lions is

as seen on the polygonal capitals at Nazareth. format of voussoirs with dynamic figures on a surface between two rows of pierced medalfound on both the archivolts for a Hospitaler hurch and those for the main west portal at szareth.!% These parallels indicate some awareness of

ment imité l’art francais pour sa sculpture figurée, elle en est restée fréquemment independante pour le décor végétal et proprement ornemental.”'*? He saw the sources for the classicizing style of the Templar workshop to be Levantine, works of Late Roman and Early Christian art in Syria and Egypt, as well as the ornamental art of the Arabs. He clearly stated his view that “les belles frises qu’on voit en France a Saint-Gilles-du-Gard, a Arles, . .. sont d’un tout autre style.” It was Alan Borg who among recent scholars introduced the idea of Italian origins for the figural lintel of the Holy Sepulcher“? and thereby stimulated serious consideration of Italian antecedents for other Crusader sculpture as well. He has been followed by B. Kiihnel for the vine-scroll lintel of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher*8 and H. Buschhausen and Z. Jacoby for the sculpture of the Templar workshop.2 Buschhausen has argued the sculptors were from Apulia, and Jacoby has proposed to see connections with Campania and Monreale, as well as Provence, instead. There can be no doubt that the Templar workshop had Italian connections, the problem is to characterize what those connections were. Proposing the possibilities that sculptors may have come from Provence, Campania, Monreale, and/or Apulia to the Holy Land and worked in the Templar workshop, raise serious chronological problems for a workshop which appears to have existed from the 1160s to the late 1180s. Not only are the issues of chronology complex internally for each of these Western regions, but also when considered in relation to the Crusader East, certain aspects are especially problematic. In the case of Provence, current scholarship seems to favor a dating of the central monument, the facade of Saint-Gilles-du-Gard, in the 1140s and early 1150s. The pulpits in Salerno, which form the focus of discussion for the Campanian sculpture, have recently convincingly been dated to the period ca. 1175-ca. 1185.% The sculpture in the great cloister at Monreale has been dated to 1172-1189.” And the outpouring of architectural sculpture in Apulia is currently dated between ca. 1179 and the mid-thirteenth century.* Starting with the last first in regard to these dates, it is instructive to observe that stylistically the closest parallels with the Templar workshop exist with Apulia.2” This strongly suggests, for reasons spelled out by Buschhausen, and discussed by Jacoby and Pace, that when Saladin overran the Latin Kingdom in 1187, a number of sculptors from Jerusalem sought refuge in Apulia, where they were subsequently employed.?" As for Provence, the sculpture from this region anchored by Saint-Gilles-du-Gard provides only general stylistic comparanda for the Jerusalem atelier and appears to be much earlier than when the Templar

ilar designs in the two workshops, but they do not nonstrate any particularly direct connections

tween them. Clearly their goals, their patrons, their n aerials, their artists, were different but, looked at

gether, they exemplify the richness and creativity that Crusader sculpture attained in the Latin Kingdom

rom the late 1160s to the disaster in 1187. Even if we see the hands of various sculptors at work in other ateliers prior to the establishment of the

Templar workshop on the Haram in the 1160s, and

even if some of them came to join this new masons’ yard, the question presents itself, what were the origins of this distinctive wet-leaf acanthus style? Once again the problem arises, as at Nazareth: Should we explain the emergence of this remarkable style on the basis of some infusion of artistic ideals from western Europe? Can we identify specific Eastern inspirations for this style that are exclusively Levantine, from late antique Roman or other classicizing work the Crusaders could have seen in the Latin Kingdom? Or should we entertain some combination of the two in which Frankish sculptors conceived and developed the impressive wetleaf acanthus style based on training they received from Western masters as well as local tradition they learned from late Roman sources as maintained and passed along by Byzantine carriers and practiced in their own masons’ yards in Jerusalem from the 1160s on? Clearly, among recent scholars, Borg, Buschhausen, Jacoby, and Pace have published very different ideas on these matters, and the views of the present author

differ from all four. When the strongly classicizing character of the wetleaf acanthus sculpture in Jerusalem was first discussed in the early part of this century, scholars such as Ger-

mer-Durand, Fabre, and Enlart sought French sources

to explain its origins and development.’

In the context

of a school of art history that saw French Romanesque art influencing Spain and southern Italy,!”7 it was the

impressively classicizing sculpture of Provence, and in par ticular St. Gilles, that was identified to be the source for this work and even the earlier Crusader figural lin| on the south transept portal of the Holy Sepulcher. Arnone recent scholars, Z. Jacoby still maintains the

centrality of St. Gilles for the development of the Templar workshop style.1%8 Already by 1930, however, P. Deschamps had argued that whereas “I’école franque d’outre-mer a constam-

455

workshop was active. Furthermore, those later monuments in southern France that were related to SaintGilles-du-Gard look very different from what we find in contemporary Jerusalem.2!! In Campania and Monreale artists were actively engaged with classicizing sculpture in the period more or less contemporary with the work of the Templar workshop, but independent of Provence or Jerusalem. However, because the evidence

strongly suggests that the Templar workshop was already active in the 1160s, it is unlikely that Italian sculptors from either Salerno or Monreale at work in the 1170s provided significant manpower when this atelier was first established. We must account for the artistic sources, the origins of the sculptors of the Templar workshop, by other means.

Buschhausen, and more recently Favreau-Lilie, have argued that commercially and politically Italians played an active role in the Levant during the period of the 1160s to the late 1180s. Moreover, we know that the

Templars had developed, or were beginning to develop, significant holdings in Sicily and the south of Italy, including Apulia, at that time.?!2 However, it is clear that when the classicizing sculpture from Monreale and Salerno is compared to the work of the Templar workshop in Jerusalem, it is the differences that are striking, not the similarities.2!3 The originality, distinctiveness, and high quality of the Jerusalem style is every bit as impressive as the independent achievements of those two regions. And as mentioned above,

the closest parallels with the Jerusalem acanthus style are found in Apulia, after ca. 1180. These factors and our discussion in preceding chapters, summarized below, seem to suggest the following hypothesis. Italian sculptors had worked in the Holy Land, along with other Crusader artists, throughout the twelfth century, and we have been able to identify their presence from time to time, especially in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. A few of these sculptors no doubt settled in the Holy Land. Following the completion of the Holy Sepulcher in the 1150s, an unknown number of these sculptors probably worked in Jerusalem at various other, including some smaller, projects. When the Templar workshop opened operations in the 1160s, some of these carvers were employed there. There is no evidence to suggest a fresh influx of sculptors from Italy; rather it is likely that Frankish artists of

then overrun by Saladin in the 1180s, many of these sculptors had contacts through their Templar, Hospitaler, and patriarchal connections, through their Italian

ancestry, and through the commercia! shipping net. work of the maritime cities to migrate to south Italy, It is striking that the greatest Crusader artistic achieve.

ments in the 1170s appear to have been increasingly in the realm of sculpture,

a medium

that had heretofore

been subordinated to painting. It is puzzling that, other than the Crusader frescoes at Abu Ghosh, no painting can be convincingly attributed to this decade with clear documentation. It is possible that to the column paintings at Bethlehem (Plates 10.17a-10.17f) some addition s

may have been made: Could the heavily da maged Saint James and perhaps one or more of the kneeling pilgrims

have been painted after the main project was completed in 1169 (see Plates 10.17a—-10.17d)?2!4 Could the now heavily restored frescoes on the stele at Bethphage have

been done in this period (Plates 10.18a and 10.18b)? This

stone was erected to mark the site from which Christ

began his entry to Jerusalem. It was decorated with scenes of the Gospel of Matthew 21:6 and 8, and the raising of Lazarus, from Bethany, just down the hill to the east.25 Theodorich, writing in 1174, refers to this holy site with new information and considerable detail. Bethany is about a mile distant from Jerusalem, where

was the House of Simon the Leper, Lazarus, and of his Sisters

Mary and Martha in which Jesus used to be entertained very

often. Bethany is situated in the valley which ends the Mount of Olives on the east. From Bethany therefore on the Day of Palms our most dear Lord Jesus Christ set off and came to Bethphage, which is a point midway between Bethany and the Mount of Olives, where a beautiful chapel has been built in his honour. He sent two disciples to bring him the ass and the colt, and standing on a great stone, which is clearly to be seen in this Chapel, he mounted the ass, and hastened through the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem.2!6

Even though Theodorich does not mention ihe paintings explicitly, what he says about the stone clearly links the extant program to the events to which he refers. Given this kind of attention by Theodorich, and the context of

Bethphage in the Tomb of Lazarus—Palm Sin day—Geth-

semane pilgrimage route with other decorated shrines, if the stone had not been painted already by 1174, it must

have been done shortly thereafter.

Italian parentage ran this workshop, which also employed local Christians trained by them. The development of the wet-leaf acanthus style seems to have been based on the late antique Roman,

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1180 to 1187

Jerusalem and the Latin Kingdom was threatened and

after 1180, and by 1183 he was so weak that it was absolutely necessary to identify a regent.”!’ The obvi-

Byzantine, and even Omayyad works these artists could have seen in and around Jerusalem, combined with their own ancestral traditions. Thus, when

The health of King Baldwin IV declined perceptibly

456

(Above ) Plate 10.17a.

Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem:

column paintings — St. James, frontal view. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

(Above right) Plate 10.17b. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — male pilgrim with St. James. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

Plate 10.17c. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — male pilgrim, detail. (Photo: British

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

(Above left) Plate 10.174.

Church of the Nati, ity, Bethl

ehem: column paintings — female pilgrim, detail. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority) (Above) Plate 10.17e. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Leonard. (Photo: British

Mandate/Israel Antiquities Auth ority)

Plate 10.17f. Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: column paintings — St. Damian. (Photo: British Mandate/Israel Antiquities Authority)

458

Plate 10.18a restoration):

Stele at Bethphage (after view.

Plate 10.18b. Stele at Bethphage (after restoration): detail.

old. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was in its most vulnerable position since August 1099. Meanwhile, following the death of Manuel I Comnenus, there was unrest in Constantinople over the regency of Empress Mary of Antioch for his thirteenyear-old son, Alexius. The pro-Latin sentiments of the regency fostered opposition led by the adventurer Andronicus Comnenus. In May 1182 Byzantine hatred of the Latins produced a terrible massacre in the city, during which foreigners were killed and their goods plundered. By 1183, Alexius II had been overthrown, but only two years later, in September of 1185, Andron-

ous candidate was Guy de Lusignan, but Baldwin was

so suspicious of him that in the autumn the regency was put aside and the king resumed direct rule, at least momentarily. As an attempt to solve the issue of the succession, on November 20, 1183, Baldwin IV again employed the rex designatus approach. He had his nephew, the young Baldwin V, crowned, and the king-

designate received the homage of his vassals in the presence of the leper king.?!* It was a responsible

attempt, but it really did not solve the problem.*! On

April 15, 1185, Baldwin IV died from his disease at age twenty-four. The new king was Baldwin V, seven years

459

_— I

iE icus, who had so recently been hailed as the savior of Byzantium, was torn to pieces by an enraged mob. The collapse of the Byzantine state was under way, and the Crusaders’ most important Levantine ally was lost.220 On December 4, 1181, Malik as-Salih, son of Nureddin

and ruler of Aleppo, died.”! Saladin marched out of Cairo in 1182, seized Mosul and Amida, and by May 1183 was camped before Aleppo. On June 11, 1183 he hoisted his yellow banner over the citadel, and eleven days later, the castle of Harim also surrendered to him. Saladin’s encirclement of the Latin Kingdom was virtually comple te.22 In the three years before he died, Bald win

IV

miraculously led his military forces sever al times against Saladin. In the summer of 1182 the truce con-

cluded earlier, lapsed and the king was forced to take

the field. Because of Saladin’s movements, “all the people of the country were accordingly ordered to concentrate at the fountain of Sephoris, between

Sephoris and Nazareth. The king, the patriarch, and

all the princes both secular and eccles iastical, with

the Cross of the Lord, attended them, and there from

day to day they awaited the appr oach of the enemy.”23 It was a premonition of the coming battle at Hattin in 1187. This time the forces engaged near

Belvoir Castle, but neither side prevailed.

gy IEE ep Se

The Christians . . . recalled their troo ps and returned to the fountain of Sephorie, which had been their starting point. On this march Baldwin, a canon of the Sepulcher of the Lord and treasurer of that church, who was bearing the Revivifying Cross, was overcome by the inten se heat. He was placed ina litter and borne to the foot of Mt. Tabor, ... where he expired. Another brother, Godfrey of Villeneuve, a canon of the same church, . . . carried away by his zeal for secular interests, . . . was struck by an arro w and perished. It is indeed just, according to the word of the Lord, that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”24

These were bad omens for the future.

Just before Christmas of 1182, the king actually led

levied on the kingdom, 1 bezant on ‘Very 100 ber worth of property owned, or for ty. = owning ie

bezant — or whatever was right — for each, hearth, Eve l

church, monastery, baron, vassal, eve ‘one w revenues,

was to give 2 bezants fo; everyho Teceived 109

they received in rents. Everyone who ow ned casalig Was to give one bezant for each hearth in ac; lition to What Was declared above.226 The money woul d be deposited F Acre for the territory north of Hai fa, and in Jerusalem a the treasury of the Holy Cross in the Church of the Hol Sepulcher, for the territory south of Haifa, This money was only

to be spent for the defense of {} \e realm.27 The army was now contin ually stationed at the fou ntain of Sephoris, a

well-watered base central to the king. dom from which Saladin’s movements could be monitored and act

ion taken when necessary. On Sep tember 29, 1183, Saladin crossed the Jordan and in the succeeding

weeks captured Beit She’an (Sc ythopolis, Bai

san) south of Belvoir, and the castle of Forbelet, raided Mount Tab

or and Nazareth, and ca mped on the southern edge of the Jezreel Valley . The C rusaders, “followin the Life-g

iving Cross and the royal standa rds,”228 byt without the king, led by Guy de Lusignan, adopted an unpopular defensive posture to contain Saladin but fight no battles unless necessary. The strategy worked. Saladin withdrew in early Octobe r, and the Crusader army returned to the fountain of Sephor is.?2° In the wake of this campaign, the king removed Guy de Lusignan from control, had his nephew crowned, and resumed personal leadership of the army. Saladin forced him into the field immediately by besieging Renaud de Chatillon, lord of Outrejourdain, in the cast le

of Kerak in November 1183. “Summoning the strength of the realm from

every source, he [Baldwin IV] took the Life-giving Cross and marched thither himself. On reaching the sea of Salt [Dead Sea] . . . after mature deliberation he made the count of Tripoli [Raymond Ill] the leader and commander of the whole army.”250 The pathetic but brave king was carried on his litter. When Saladin heard of the

approach

and accompanied by the Cross

of the Lord, assembled near Tiberias at a place on the sea of Galilee called Castellum. From there the y Jacob’s ford and entered the crossed the river at enemy’s land.”225 The Crusaders marched to Damasc us but could not penetrate the orchards Surrou nding the city and were forced to retire. King Baldwi n IV returned to Tyre in time for Christmas. It was Baldwin’s last offensive military action. The constant military activity was taking its toll on the king, but the growing threat of Saladin forced the Crusaders to maintain constant vig cial means. In February 1183 ilance and to adopt spe, an extraordinary tax was

460

of the Crusaders, he lifted his siege. But he would try again in the fall of 1184, again the Crusaders would march to

relieve Kerak, again Saladin would have to withdraw without success. But Saladin was not done with Rena ud de Chatillon.

Not only had the independent and unruly Renaud broken the 1180 truce by attacking Moslem caravans traveling to Mecca in the summer of 1181, he had also launched a fleet on the Red Sea to pillage Moslem ports and shipPing in the winter of 1182-1183. Renaud attacked ports

servicing Medina and Mecca, and even sank a pilgrim

ship bound for Jidda. Saladin was outra ged. Renaud continued his depredations. Ibn al-Athir ominous! y reported, with the benefit of hindsight: “Saladin vowed that if ever he laid hands on him he would kill him.”2!

Baldwin IV was virtually a living corpse when he ally died from his dread disease on April 15, 1185.

liam of Tyre was spared the pain of writing about beloved king by predeceasing him, on September 1184.232 As a result we know little about the circum-

nces of Baldwin’s funeral and burial. We also know y little about his tomb.

The Tomb of King Baldwin IV

tant for Jerusalem is an icon, now

preserved in the

monastery of St. Catherine’s on Mt. Sinai (Plate 10.19; Color Plate 41). On a small panel are six standing saints in two tiers: Sts. Paul, James the Greater, and Stephen on the top and, below, Sts. Lawrence, Martin of Tours, and Leonard of Limoges, founder and first abbot of the monastery of Noblac.2* The prominence given to St. James the Greater clearly links this icon to Jerusalem, where it may have been painted. James occupies the central position on

the top row, a place usually reserved for Christ, the Virgin, or some other major holy figure on Byzantine

The usual sources that tell us much about the royal rusader tombs are silent on Baldwin IV. Even though

icons. James also outranks Paul, who stands to the left,

and to the right is Stephen, the first Christian martyr in Jerusalem. Stephen is usually paired with Lawrence, not Paul, and Lawrence does appear here, but on the lower row, with two Western saints. On the central

> was a leper, presumably he was given at least partial urial in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher with his

predecessors, as stated by the Chronicle of Ernoul.2% Even E. Horn, who provided so much important information, only indicated indirectly that it must have been one of the four tombs located north of the Stone of \nnointing (see Figure 1), and that it must have been relatively simple, like those which preceded his.7* One sculptural fragment found in Jerusalem has been suggested to be from this tomb, and we may suggest other possibilities.2> The fact is that when Horn saw these tombs, he noted that three of them had been “completely despoiled of their ornament by the Moslems or also by the Greeks and Copts.”2% It is likely that the Tomb of Baldwin IV was one of them because apparently his tomb was one of those damaged. It is, moreover, very possible that his tomb had some of the ornamental fragments in contrast to the more austere sepulchers of his predecessors. We are, however, unable to reconstruct the tomb of Baldwin IV on the basis of these few carved pieces, and neither Horn, nor anyone else did a drawing of what the tomb might have looked like.#” There seems to be no doubt that Baldwin IV had a

tdi a)

i|

tomb in the Holy Sepulcher. If, as seems likely, the

tomb of his successor, Baldwin V, was constructed in

1186-1187, there is every reason to expect that Baldwin [V's must have been done shortly after his death, later

on in 1185, or at any rate before Baldwin V died. Thus

necessary artistic commissions continued even in the face of the most dire peril for the Latin Kingdom.

Panel Painting and Fresco Painting in Jerusalem and Bethlehem

—s et

No other examples of royal patronage are known, but there are a number of works of painting that have been traditionally attributed to the period “before

bs

Plate 10.19.

a

racent e SN ee ee

BN

a

Six Saints icon from St. Catherine’s, Mt. Sinai.

(Photo: By courtesy of the Princeton/Michigan/ Alexandria Expedition to Mount Sinai)

1187” that should be considered here. The most impor-

461

axis, below St. James, is St. Martin of Tours, dressed in

his episcopal robes, blessing in the Latin manner and

holding a crozier. St. Leonard appears as a hermit with

manacles as his attribute, but he holds a cross as well, in the manner of Byzantine saints.

This icon was clearly done for someone interested in

Jerusalem, and the focus on St. James, the first bishop,

certainly suggests it was done there before Jerusalem fell in 1187. The patron also must have been Weste rn or Frankish because all the inscriptions are done in Latin, and St. Leonard was considered to be the patron saint of prisoners. The un-Byzantine composition and the unique combination of Western and Jerus alem saints gives this icon a distinctive program. Stylist ically, the painting has been compared to Byzantine frescoes in Vladimir (1194), which feature the long highlights seen on several of the saints, and the soft highli ghting particularly on the face of St. Paul. The artist is clearly not Byzantine, however, as the stocky figure s, the emphasis on pattern in highlights and surface designs, and the drapery conventions with V folds indicate. Nearby Jerusalem, it is worth noting that

some of the column-figure icons at Bethle hem provide some interesting comparisons. The “Wes terness” of St. Martin is affirmed when compared to the equally Western and fundamentally similar figu re type of Bishop St. Brasius at Bethlehem (see Plate 5.15 ).29 Also, the figure of St.

Stephen at Bethlehem (see Plat e 8A.1

7) is strikingly Byzantinizing by contrast with the more Western figure on the icon, but the icon figure in turn is more Byzantine-influenced than the St. Stephen in the Melisende Psalter (see Plate 6.9s) .?#9 Again, the drapery of the icon figure is later than either of the other two examples. There is an image of St. Leonard at Bethlehem (see Plate 10.17e),241 but the figure on the icon is totally different, except for the iconography of the cross they share. In fact, the closest parallels with the drapery styles can be seen in the group of ascetics probably done by 1169, for example, the figures of St. Anthony, Euthymius, Sabas, and Damian (see Plat

es 9.26b-9.26d, 10.17£).2# Although in these figures we find more pronounced V-fold conventions, the icon to some extent reflects a similar sense of patt ern, a comparable use of hatching in the highlighting, the emphasis on the highlighting of the left leg, and the handling of linearity in the design. Therefore it seem s reasonable to date this icon later than these Bethlehe m figures but before the fall of

Jerusalem, thus between ca.

1170 and ca. 1187, and quite possibly it belongs to the later Part of this period. Where did the artist come from who painted this icon? Weitzmann noted that the figure of St. Martin features the use of dot pat terns found frequently in

Byzantine-influenced paintings of Apul ia 243 Pa ce did not address this particular icon and ealt with examples in a separate study, but later “oneth argued that most : of the relevant pai ntings einlesg he Apulia are basically thirteenth-century . He proposed to see a situation in which the developme nts jn Apulian paint ing were

influenced to some extent from the Holy Land.*44 Weitzmann’s latest suggestion was that the artist came from sou

th Italy, Possibly Calabr .245Once ia again, we might suggest a Possib ility for this Painter along the same lines as the sculptors discussed earlier,

Perhaps the painter was bor n in the Holy Land but came from Italia

n parentage or a mixed Mar riage, Per. haps the artist was traine d by a south Italian, Pos sibly even his father, and wo rked for Crusader Pat ron s. When the difficulty of identi fying the “Nationality” of the artist is

greatest, we must consid er the Possibility that the artist was Franki sh-born. We must consid er, in

other words, the idea of Crusader artist

s Who are native to the Crusader Sta tes, as first-, second-, or eve n third-generation settlers. Just as William of Tyre was a Crusader historian, born in Jerusalem, educated in the West, who returned to the Latin East to spend his enti re

ecclesiastical career in the Latin Kingdom, so these painters may be born, for example, in Jerusalem or Acre, are apprenticed to master s first in the Latin Kingdom and then possibly in Ita ly or in France, and then return to work in their native lan d. Even though there is so little evidence to help us deal with the developments in icon painting at this time, it is important that we reflect again on how important icons were becoming for the Crusaders in the second half of the century, as we have already mentioned above.246 This development is substantially due to the considerable presence of the Orthodox in the Latin Kingdom, Greeks to some extent, but especially Syrians.247 Acculturation evolved in m.

ty ways, by intermarriage, for example, or by native-born Christians becoming Latin-rite Catholic s in order to be seen as Franks in the eyes of Frankish law.™§ x2 Orthodox Presen

ce was enhanced,

as we have alread’ mentioned above, by the Orthodox wom en at the roya! court, most notably,

Melisende, and the Wives of Baldwi n III and

Amaury I. Furthermore, import ant Orthodox monas-

teries were on the Pilgrims’ routes, monasicries

easily accessible, such as the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem run by the Georgians, but also monasteries

in remote places such as St. Cath erine’s on Mt. Sinai and the monastery of Our Lady at Saidnaya™? northWest of Damascus. All Were mona steries in which icons were focal points of religious devo tion and artistic achievement.250 Finally, the Syrian Orthodox presence was especially notable given a number of functioning

ps in the Latin Kingdom and the fact that in salem at least, most Orthodox Christians were Syri-

of these factors were important in establishing

ping climate c of cultural and artistic interpene-

for which, even if the cultural gulf was never tely bridged, certain Crusader artistic commisan be seen as documents

of instances where

; were made. Crusader icons apparently began me important examples of this in the second he twelfth century. at other examples of painting are there to help »ut our view of the situation in the 1180s? ough no other works from Jerusalem have been

fied with any consensus, the paintings of the octistus Monastery in the Judean wilderness have y been studied and dated shortly before 1187.25! \scension appears possibly to have been done by a

ifferent hand — and at a different time? — from the rest » frescoes. In any case, these works are Byzantine, not Crusader. They “represent a variation of the so‘dynamic’ phase of the Comnenian style. They called reflect the provincial Palestinian version of this style.”252 They are also less impressive in quality than the frescoes oO

in the Hospitaler church at Abu Ghosh, and they corroborate the views of Hus go Buchthal and Annemarie Wey! Carr that Crusader art vas more often Dased on Byzantine court art than regional traditions.

The San Danieli Bible A much more impressive work of the very highest quality has proven to be extremely controversial. The San Danieli Bible has recently, once again, been attributed to Jerusalem, but through the years debate has raged over its place of origin (Plates 10.20a—10.20g; Color Plates 37-40).255 Garrison set the terms of the argument when he wrote: “the Bible is either of Jerusalem

other center

under

strong

produced it, whether in Sicily or elsewhere, is otherwise totally unknown.”>* Buchthal called it “undoubtedly the finest and most impressive testimony of the fascination which Crusader illumination of the twelfth century exercised on the minds of western artists.”>” It would help to know its provenance — how it arrived at

Bible of San Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca Guarneriana, initial O, for Naum. (Photo: By permission of the 24r, Ms. Ill: fol. siblioteca Guarneriana)

Plate 10.20a.

or of some

Jerusalem influence and that if the latter, the center that

Plate 10.20b. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca Guarneriana, Ms. III: fol. 28r, initial I, for Haggai.

(Photo: By permission of the Biblioteca Guarneriana)

PFEEEELET

Plate 10.20d.

OEE SR

RERBERN

ENS

RR

cre

Bible of San Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca

Guarneriana, Ms. III: fol. 131v, initial A, for Judith. (Photo: By

permission of the Biblioteca Guarneriana)

Plate 10.20c. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca Guarneriana, Ms. III: fol. 35r, initial P, for Proverbs. (Photo:

By permission of the Biblioteca Guarneriana)

Plate 10.20e. G

Bible of San Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca

i

, Ms. II: fol. 156v, initial E, for M bees I. (Ele byPeace oFthe ral Sapa Aenea ee

464

“ ;

q

oy?

ea

a

3 a [8 O\4 ? CVSSET

——

‘sua

,

:

FANFEYE ALE \ Ai (DE R

|

Avi

TOCALI’SIs

tobis we haber

frermina quer uerta. Part diet. ap mero uclumunt laf omis Ba interios.¢. In werkns fingulefiut uplhtcef Laverne muedligercae FNP

LT

ie apts mampore fae furrurs

4

t @Mpticiv

ARGVOO 1

o

S NINIBYNEY NODonABe.HO fed pifm wpin cx

ph

exer avn Plate 10.20f.

Bible of San Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca

Guarneriana, Ms. III: fol. 208v, initial A, for Apocalypse. (Photo: By permission of the Biblioteca Guarneriana)

the little town of San Danieli del Friuli, what its origi-

nal function was, and why it is so fragmentary, both in the texts that were originally planned for it and in terms of the painted decoration that has been cut out of it, presumably in modern times. These are all questions that remain unanswered, or only partly answered. Garrison and Hunt attempted to attribute the codex to Jerusalem on stylistic grounds. Garrison proposed to find parallels for this Bible with Jerusalem manuscript illumination of the third quarter of the twelfth century,

in terms of paleography, type of decorated initials, and style of illustrations.*8 He noted that the elegant script was French, comparable to what was found in manu-

scripts from the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher. He found the capital letters starting major text segments

also comparable. For the large historiated initials he noted the “special forms of geometricals” used as decoration, as well as the interlace, medallions, diapering, animals and animal heads, and exquisite foliage that is shared by many Jerusalem codices in repertory if not necessarily in terms of equally high quality. Garrison and Hunt also point out the use of an ornamental six-

pointed [sic] star in both the Bible and the Melisende Psalter,5* and Hunt says that the polygonal patterned

Giferrausir e1mn

Plate 10.20g. Bible of San Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca Guarneriana, Ms. Ill: fol. 236v, initial P, for Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Guarneriana)

(Photo: By permission

of the Biblioteca

a

background for the Naum initial on folio 23r23 reflects the “patterned inlay of the lunette above the west door of the south portal of the Holy Sepulcher.”** The problems with these comparisons highlight the difficulty scholars have found in seeking a context for this Bible. First, the eight-pointed star is a common geometric design in the Levant, and the fact that this comparison can only be made with the Melisende Psalter, a codex done in the 1130s, does not seem to strengthen the argument for Jerusalem for the Bible. Second, comparing the polygonal designs around the Naum initial with the Holy Sepulcher tympanum inlay is of no consequence, because the mosaics in the tympanum would have covered the masonry pattern referred to after ca. 1149. Finally, and most important, concerning this decorative repertoire, no Jerusalem or Sicilian codex has painted ornament that looks similar to that in the Bible. Consider especially the bold geometric patterning (see Plate 10.20f; Color Plate 39), the monumental initials (see Plates 10.20b, 10.20g; Color Plates 37 and 40), and the enamellike handling of the aint, with strong, indeed, vivid coloration (see Plates

10.20e, and 10.20f; Color Plates 38 and 39). The incredibly rich color used in this Bible is a strik-

;a ing feature, creating a sumptuous effect with the dark purple, bright reds and blues, deep greens, all set on glowing gold grounds. Indeed the handling of the gold shows some of the same technique as found in the later Riccardiana Psalter, not only in the quality of its color and texture but also in the way the gold is used to “outline” figures, small initials, and even some of the

large initials. Moreover, the gold is used both as a field or ground, and as a linear design element in the some of these large initials. Combined with the elegant script, the rich decorative repertory, and the opulent color, the figure style is strongly Byzantine-influenced, but not purely Byzantine. Although the slender figures and the strongly highlighted drapery style compare generally with the figures in the Jerusalem gospelbooks dated, as noted earlier, to the late 1160s,?6! the Bible figures are of more outstanding quality and demonstrate no specific ties to the Jerusalem work. Hunt, however, proposed that the

“dancing prophets,” some features of the modeling of the figures, and some aspects of the ornament are found both in the San Danieli Bible and in the Syriac Buchanan Bible in Cambridge. From this she concluded that the San Danieli Bible may have been in Syria in the late twelfth century for the artists of the

Buchanan Bible to see. Furthermore, there are special

features we do not find in any codex from the Holy Sepulcher scriptorium or in the Buchanan Bible. Consider the bright blue and red colors used for the figures, color more associated with Armenian painting than with Italian, or Jerusalem painting in the Levant. Consider the extraordinary highlighting. Where do we find such coloristic use of yellow, light-blue, graywhite, and white highlights? These characteristics taken together demonstrate why this codex is so difficult to localize. They also

strongly suggest a Crusader origin for this manuscript. Here in an elegantly produced codex is a Latin bible text written by a French scribe, with miniatures perhaps done by Italian painters in contact with the sphere of Jerusalem manuscript illumination under the influence of Byzantine and possibly Armenian painting,

which is related to a codex done near Edessa in the 1190s. It is a classic example of the multicultural artistic characteristics that the Holy Sepulcher scriptorium has demonstrated to be typical of a Crusader manuscript.

obvious artistic comparanda in this period to resolve the

issue, but all three deserve consideration jn light of the

approach Hunt has currently been taking.22 Tripoli jg perhaps the least likely of the three because so little js known of any artistic activity there in the late twelfth century. On the other hand, politically, Rayinond Ill was one of the central figures in the Crusader States durin

the years immediately before 1187. The 5yzantine tradjtion on Cyprus is important to conside; here, but no known product of Crusader book Painting has as yet

been identified in the years following Richard I's con-

quest in 1191. Antioch seems more promising because of

its Byzantine connections, because of its multicultural

population and interaction with Cilicia, and because of the suggestion of artistic activity that has been made for it in this period. However, the spectacle of Bohemond III

sparring with the Armenian princes following the death of Manuel I does not provide any known circumstances

particularly conducive to artistic commissions of the sort

exemplified by the San Danieli Bible.2 Furthermore the

pro-Byzantine era in Antioch ended with the massacre

of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182. Nonetheless, the situation improved between Antioch and Cilicia after 1187. And the Crusader artistic works attributed to Ante och or the Antioch region in this era are primarily metal-

work for which, with the exception of the coinage, any

precise dating or localization is as yet lacking.2 Otherwise, we shall need to pursue further the proposed connections between the illustration of this manuscript and others such as the Buchanan Bible and Armenian codices in the northern territories adjacent to the Principality of Antioch.265 In the current state of the question we can only propose that the San Danieli Bible exhibits telling characteristics typical of Crusader manuscripts. It is puzzling because, along with a Latin text, French scribal hand,

and certain Italo-Byzantine stylistic aspects in the

painting which have caused the Bible to be attributed to south Italy or Sicily, there are strong Levantine features, such as the colorism, multicolored

highlights,

and bold sense of patterning that are found in some Syrian manuscripts and are especially typical of Armenian codices — but mostly later, in the thirteenth century. Pace has suggested that the codex dates after

the San Danieli Bible does not appear to

1187, and he may be correct, but it mus! have been done in the East. We shall see below tha! Crusader painting continued despite Saladin’s conquest of most

that we know of that comes from Jerusalem in the

Possibility for further study as the place of origin for

However,

come from Jerusalem. It does not look like anything

of the Crusader States in 1187. Antioch remains a prime

twelfth century. As Garrison said, the center that produced it is probably hitherto otherwise, alas, unknown. Three possibilities spring to mind as that center: Tripoli, Cyprus, and Antioch. None provides us with

the San Danieli Bible. The Latin Kingdom was spared an immediate

Moslem invasion following the death of Baldwin IV in April 1185, partly because Raymond III sought a four-

466

truce for the Crusader States and partly because Saladin himself fell seriously ill and almost died in the > r of 1185-1186. Baldwin IV had provided for his x

ssor, Baldwin V, and arrangements for a regency

nade. Bypassing Guy de Lusignan, Raymond III lentified as regent, and Joscelin III was made

schal, personal guardian for the boy-king, Baldwin

to identify, the various types appearing quite similar in the bestiaries. This bird seems medium-sized with taloned feet, but without special plumage, and its distinctive feature here is the act of turning its head back towards its lower body with his eye closed. Among the

obvious birds to consider in a pose of this sort, the pelican is unlikely.2”4 The eagle, “king of birds,” would seem possible, but the pose taken here is unknown to eagles and does not convey its royal grandeur.*> The

The Tomb of King Baldwin V it was fortunate for the Latin Kingdom that Saladin was willing to ratify the truce, because by February 1186 he had fully recovered from his illness, and in August, the frail and delicate Baldwin V died in

Acre.2°8 Joscelin III brought his corpse to Jerusalem, where Baldwin was buried in the Church of the Holy

Sepulcher with his predecessors. Despite the straightened circumstances he was given a remarkable tomb, the most ornately decorated of any Crusader king in the twelfth century (Plate 10.21). Although Baldwin V’s tomb was destroyed along with the others at the beginning of the nineteenth century, we know what it looked like, thanks to the draw-

ing and description by E. Horn and the reconstruction based on that drawing, proposed by Z. Jacoby. The tomb

was

smaller than the others,?7° to hold the

remains of Baldwin, who died before he was nine years old. It was also given a richer program of sculptural decoration than the others, in the style of work done by the Templar atelier. Quaresmius recorded an inscription on the tomb, and Horn reproduced it, as follows: Septimus in tumulo p[uler isto rex tumulatus est

Baldeuinus, regum de sanguine natus, Quem tulit e mundo sors prim[a]e conditionis, Ut pa[ra]dysiac[a]e loca possideat regionis.*"

None of the inscription has survived, but Jacoby has identified fragments of six different parts of the sculptural program.

Most of the sculptural fragments are architectural

elements, such as the paired, interlaced columns with

capitals and column bases, or are foliate decoration in the wet-leaf acanthus style from plaques or part of the “entablature” at the top of the sarcophagus, under and surrounding the lost slab with the inscription. Perhaps the most remarkable extant fragment is the conchoid niche that contains a bird at its center, and the remains of a wing of an angel to the right. Jacoby has interpreted this bird as a dead eagle?” but it may be a “caladrius.”’273

The representations of birds are notoriously difficult

caladrius, however, is described in the bestiaries as follows: “Now this bird is generally to be found in the halls of kings, . . . For if anybody is very ill indeed, you can tell from a Caladrius whether the patient is going to live or die. When the sickness is mortal, as soon as the Caladrius sees the patient he turns his back on him, and then everybody knows that the fellow is doomed.”””° The relevance of representations of the caladrius, a bird also likened to Christ because he was white and without blemish, on the sarcophagus of a dead king seems apparent, but this is novel funerary symbolism unknown elsewhere. Indeed, the entire program of sculpture on this sarcophagus, as drawn by Horn and reconstructed by Jacoby, appears to be rather innovative. The basic design is similar to the earlier tombs of the Crusader kings only in terms of the prominence of the inscription on top. Otherwise the sarcophagus is conceived as a container, like that of Kings Baldwin II and/or Fulk,2” but decorated on the front and sides with not just one, but with three tiers of marble sculpture. Unique to this sarcophagus is a program of figural sculpture combined with fauna and flora. At the top on the front there is a bust-length Christ, blessing and holding a book, identified by the Greek abbreviations, “I~C” and “X~C”. He is flanked on each side by a bustlength angel. Separating Christ from the angels are two conchoid niche elements with a caladrius in the center of each. The conchoid niches of the upper tier are in effect supported by paired, interlaced columns beneath Christ and the angels in the central register. Between the paired columns are interlaced foliate designs. In the lower tier is what appears to be a bust-length representation of a king holding a scepter (?) as the upper central part of a lilylike motif that features exaggeratedly long leafy arms ending in blossoms to each side. The sources and meaning of this sculptural program are complex. We have already seen, starting with Godefroy de Bouillon, that the Crusader royal tombs, however Western in concept, were surprisingly independent of European or Byzantine traditions for kings or emperors, or the popes in Rome.’ Clearly the shift from a medieval canopied tomb in the manner of the early kings of Jerusalem, to a sarcophagus in 1186 reminiscent of an Early Christian type, was in keeping with

a

amet

Se AAa

UA Meme!

ily a raphically.? Finally, what is the date of this sarcophagus? Jacoby

has ou

demonstrated that the sculpture on this sarcopha-

closely related to the work of what she called the

“Temple Area Workshop,” and what the present author calls

made latter

the Templar atelier.?° Jacoby has persuasively

the case that this sculpture should be dated to the years of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the

twelfth century. By cleverly identifying actual sculptural fragments to be part of Baldwin’s tomb through the use of Horn’s drawing, Jacoby proposed to reconstruct the sarcophagus of Baldwin V as one of the only works we know from artists related to this workshop as an ensemble." It gives us a clear idea of the relationship in this one case, of what fragments survive relative to the original object. Thus we have some indication of the enormous amount of sculpture done by the Templar

atelier and for other projects done in the same style, given the number of fragments that survive overall and those that must be lost. On the bases of this material

and these arguments, we can fairly surely date this tomb and its handsome sculpture to the period immediately after the death of Baldwin V in August 1186, but before the fall of Jerusalem in early October 1187. Furthermore we can see the Tomb of Baldwin V as a climax to the sculptural developments in Jerusalem in the late 1180s, one of the last projects to have been done before Saladin conquered Jerusalem in 1187. In the consternation following the death of Baldwin V, the Crusaders managed to select and crown his successor with dispatch involving a certain amount of realpolitik. While Raymond III rode to collect the barons of the kingdom for an assembly at Nablus to choose the next king, Joscelin III, seneschal of the

realm, sent the corpse of Baldwin V in the charge of the Templars to Jerusalem for burial, where Sibylla and

Guy de Lusignan would attend the funeral. Then in a series of dramatic and complicated events, Sibylla and Guy engineered, in effect, a coup d’etat. It was paradoxical that Sibylla, as the elder daughter of King

Amaury, who possessed the best claim to the throne, had to resort to such means, but the terms of Baldwin

IV's will to select a new ruler would have meant months of delay in difficult circumstances, and the rivalry of Raymond III and Guy de Lusignan threatened the security of the already embattled and faction-

alized Latin Kingdom. Thus shortly after the funeral

of Baldwin V, with Jerusalem firmly in the military con-

trol of forces loyal to Sibylla and Guy, the patriarch Heraclius crowned Sibylla, and she in turn crowned

Guy. The Templars clearly supported the new rulers

led by their new Grand Master, Gerard of Ridefort. In these circumstances, although the new king and queen

may have officially commissioned the tomb for their predecessor, the tomb itself eloquently proclaims the fact that the Templars were clearly in charge of the project on their behalf. It appears, therefore, that the Tem-

plars arranged for sculptors who had been members of their atelier to do Baldwin V’s tomb at the behest of Sibylla and Guy soon after their coronation, that is, probably in the fall of 1186.7

The Coenaculum Despite the political turmoil and the growing mili-

tary threat of Saladin, there appears to have been one other important architectural and sculptural project in Jerusalem during these last years before 1187. It was independent of the Templars but closely focused on a major holy site, the Coenaculum (Plate 10.22).7% Located then in the southeast corner of the Church of St. Mary on Mt. Sion,?” the cenacle was an important holy place identified by pilgrims as the site of the Last Supper,* and the upper room of the apostles at Pentecost” among other associations.*” The Abbot Daniel, writing in the first decade of the twelfth century, described the upper room as follows: In this church on Sion there is a chamber behind the altar

and in this chamber Christ washed the feet of his disciples. From this chamber, going south, you must climb a stairway to the Upper Room; this is a chamber, beautifully made, standing on pillars and with a roof, decorated with mosaic and beautifully paved and with an altar as in a church at the east end. And here was the room of John the Theologian in which Christ supped with his disciples. Here John lay on Christ's breast and asked, “Lord who is the one that will betray you?” In the same place the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost.”

Nearly eighty years later, the Greek pilgrim, Johannes Phocas described it as follows: To the right of this church and on the right of the sanctuary is the Upper Room, to which there is a staircase of sixty-one steps. This church has four domed vaults. And in the left part of the Upper Room one sees the place where the Lord’s Supper was held. In the apse of the bema is the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. And beneath this church the Washing took place*®

John of Wiirzburg, an earlier pilgrim of ca. 1170, found an inscription on the wall of the narthex as follows:*® Christ, once he'd risen, did appear To Galilee’s disciples here. Because of this, as you can see, This place is called “The Galilee.”™

Plate 10.22.

The Coenaculum, interior View, northeast side.

Clearly this place had lon g been identified and revere d as a holy site by the time the Crusaders first arrived on Mt. Sion. By the 1180s, however, they apparentl y wished

we can mention the following aspects. Firs t, there ar of course the ribbed vaul

dramatic new architecture.

and graceful in the manner of the Church

to renovate the cenacle, and it was done with

Austin canons were in cha

rge of the Church of St. Mary, Mt. Sion, and it was presumably they who spo nsored the projec

t. Johannes Phocas reflected the change when he referred to the “four domed vaults.” It is likely that the vaults he saw as “domed” were in fact rib-vaulted Gothic vaults, the most developed Gothic architecture yet built in the Latin Kingdom. Plommer has identified a Variety of features that belong to thi s late-twelfth-century Phase of the building, and withou t attempting to unravel the mysterious changes in

470

plan and the reuse of cert ain materials ts, which feature arches that

are

still broad

of the Holy

Sepulcher but are now a bit steepe r and more pointed. The rib profiles, however, are much more developed tha

n those of the Holy Sepulcher .2%

Egual!y characteristic of late-twelfth-centu ry developments aré the

crocket capitals found in the main cha mber,”

beautiful chamfering on the south wall, and dogtooth mold-

ings on the exterior windows3” Second, in addition to these aspects of architectural arti culation and definition is the matt

er of the plan and elevation.

Although the cenacle apparently has been red uced in later times by at least one bay,3! it appeared to have one important

» that only the Vincent and Abel drawings make [t had a narthex at the ground level and the main »er was raised above it.31! two-story design of the cenacle, with the Galilee below and the upper room proper above, received

clear.

important replication in the West. In Easby Abbey and

elsewhere

in England, Austin canons built elevated

refectories from the late 1180s on.3!2 Working with the methodology of Richard Krautheimer’s famous discussion on the meaning of the “Iconography of Mediaeval

Architecture,”!5 Peter Fergusson has argued persuasively

that the appearance of these refectories was based on the Coenaculum in Jerusalem and that indeed

this type of refectory is a canonic feature quite distinct from contemporary Cistercian monastic architecture. It

is obviously significant to recall that whereas the

Austin canons controlled most of the major holy sites in and around Jerusalem, the Cistercians had very little

presence in the Latin Kingdom. The Coenaculum is an exciting if complicated monument that shows that the beginnings of Gothic, faintly visible in the Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulcher and more clearly identifiable in the Cathedral of St. John at Sebaste, had developed over the intervening thirtysome years, even in the Holy Land. As architecture it maintained some of the Levantine qualities of spaciousness characterized by the use of broad, generous pointed arches. It is in architectural sculpture especially that we find an up-to-date repertory comparable to early Gothic in the west. Plommer’s and Fergusson’s arguments suggest that the closest connections were with England; thus the architect and architectural sculptor may have been English. Certainly the widespread impact that the Coenaculum had on canonic architecture in England after ca. 1185 suggests that the ideas found at this holy site in Jerusalem, if not the actual architect and masons,

were taken to England as part of the traffic between Jerusalem and Henry II in an effort to persuade the English king to come to the aid of the Holy Land.** The project of renovating the Coenaculum was apparently one of a long line of endeavors by the Crusaders to refurbish the holy sites. It shows that major

architectural and artistic commissions continued into the last fateful days before Hattin in 1187. We have also seen that Johannes Phocas visited this place ca. 1185. He was the last pilgrim to write an account of the Holy Land before 1187.

The Pilgrimage Account of Johannes Phocas Johannes Phocas was a Greek monk, not a Westerner, and this is reflected in numerous ways in the

description of his travels. We have already seen, in our

discussion of his text on Bethlehem,*'5 that he makes use of the Byzantine tradition of ekphraseis. Even though he may have personally visited and seen many

important sites, his account is often based on literary

tradition rather than on direct description, partly because he was more interested in the holy men he found in these places. We have also seen in regard to the Cenacle, that his descriptive language is rooted in his Byzantine expectations and conceptual framework. We can also note that in his choice of sites to visit, he goes to all the important Byzantine monasteries, which few other pilgrims do.** And when he visits the greatest holy sites, he concentrates on the Byzantine features,” extolling the patronage of Emperor Manuel I for many projects. In some cases, as at Bethlehem, he ignores the fact that the redecoration was a joint commission, an inexcusable oversight given the fact that

the inscription in the bema describing the cooperative venture was written in both Greek and Latin. In other cases, as in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, he attributed to Manuel projects that only he among pilgrims refers to and that cannot be verified by their existence today.*"§ In general, he lionized Emperor Manuel in his role as protector and benefactor of the holy sites.*"” Johannes Phocas wrote one of the most interesting pilgrim’s accounts, partly because of the number of places he visited, partly because of what he described about those who inhabited them. As a monk he was concerned to visit the many monasteries, to learn about the monastic holy men who lived in them. He also comments on their relics, the latter aspect a feature he shares with many Western pilgrims to Jerusalem and elsewhere. His account of Jerusalem covers only three chapters, Bethlehem and Nazareth, one each, remarkably brief descriptions in contrast to the abundant detail he gives to other places en route. Johannes Phocas was from Crete, became a soldier

and then a monk. His pride in the emperor seems partly to have been stimulated by his military service with him. Compared to the earlier accounts of the German pilgrims John of Wiirzburg and Theodorich, Johannes Phocas gives us very little new information on Crusader developments in the Holy Land.

The Battle at the Horns of Hattin and the Loss of the Crusader Relic of the True Cross Following the coronation of Sibylla and Guy, in the fall of 1186, a number of developments rapidly occurred that resulted in a precipitous deterioration of the political and military situation. The factionaliza-

tion of the barons was manifested immediately and formally when, at the meeting of the High Court at

Acre, Baldwin of Ibelin refused to pay homage to King

bishop of Acre also perished. It was h; who ha d carried

the relic of the True Cross into battle : :

and When he di i this precious relic fell $ into the hands of the Moslems never to be

Guy when summoned to do so by Renaud de Chatillon. Indeed civil war between Sibylla and Guy on the one hand and Raymond III on the other was only nartowly averted by chance. The truce by which the kingdom had been spared military incursions since the spring of 1185 was at that moment torn asunder. Early in 1187 Renaud de Chatillon attacked a rich caravan traveling from Cairo to Damascus that was allegedly protected by the truce. He seized enormous booty and took many captives. Saladin was outraged, but King Guy was powerless to force Renaud to free the prisoners or give back the plunder. Bohemond and Raymond moved quickly to renew the truce for Antioch and Tripoli, respectively, but Saladin was now determined to attack the Latin Kingdom. Saladin initiated his offensive with a reconnaiss ance

crimes, of his treachery, his bla sphemy and his greed. When Reynald answered truculently, Saladin himself took a sword and struck off his head

III in accordance with their treaty, separ ate from the

The vengeance that Saladin had vowed was consum-

raid into Galilee, arranged in advance with Raymond

broken truce with Jerusalem. He sent his son, Nured-

din, to lead the probe on May 1. The result of a chance encounter at “la Fontaine de Cresson” near Nazareth, between the Moslems and some Crusa ders, mostly Templars, left only three Templar survi vors, of whom one was Gerard de Ridefort. Gerard’s hatred for Raymond was now fueled by what he saw as treason by the count. Raymond for his part was appalled at the outcome of events and reconciled himself with King Guy, but it was too late.

Saladin marched across the Jord an at Sennabra into the Latin Kingdom on July 1, 1187. 32! The Crusaders, as they had done many times before, assembled at the springs of Sephoris to decide how to deal with the invasion. The king ordered the patriarc h to bring the relic of the True Cross, ensign of the Crus ader army, but Heraclius himself declined to come, send ing it in the hands of the prior of the Holy Sepulcher. Losing no time, Saladin took the city of Tiberias on July 2, where the wife of Raymond III was in danger. In the council of war that evening, Raymond to his credit counseled the king to adopt the defensive strategy that had worked so well for the Crusaders in similar Previous circumstances. Gerard de Ridefort, however, privatel y urged the king to attack.>” Unfortunately King Guy was persuaded and he issued marching orders. The Crusaders moved out the next morning. It was July 3, 1187 . The story of the battle fought at the barren Horns of Hattin on July 4, 1187 has ofte n been told.33 It was an unmitigated disaster for the Cru saders, in which they not only suffered a crushing defe at but most of the military manpower of the Latin Kin gdom was killed. The

472

regained by the Crusaders'324 Sala

din also captured the king and many of his most import ant barons, inc luding the Grand Master of the Templars,

Sir Steven Runciman

vividly reconstructed the fina l

scene in Saladin’s tent whe n brought in.

the Prisoners were

Saladin received Kin

g Guy and his Amalric, Reynald of Chatillon and his brother the Constable stepson Humphrey of Toron, the Grand Master of the Temple, ... He Sreeted them graciously. He

seated

the King next to him and, Seeing his thirst, handed him a gobl et of rose-water, iced with the snows of Hermon. .

. . He then turned on Reynau ld whose impious brigandage he could not forgive and reminded him of his .325

mated.

Following his victory, Saladin erected a

monument on the summit of the place where Kin g Guy was capture d. The Qubbat al-Nasr (Do me of Victory)

, now reduced to a few layers of stone iden tified by recent

excavations, was Saladin’s ans wer to the Crusader Church of Sainte Katerine de Mont gisart, put up by the

Franks after defeating him in 1177.2 The Crusaders had suffered defeats before, but never of this magnitude. Their kings and barons had been captured before, but never so ma ny at one time and never to an adversary of such powe r. In this case the Crusader army had been annihilated, and its sacred

symbol, the relic of the True Cross, had been lost. Saladin was now poised to conquer the Crus ader States.

Between July 5, 1187 and January 1, 1188 he moved to

Occupy Crusader territory. Only Tyre held out in the Latin Kingdom. In the north the C rusaders managed to

hold Tripoli, Antioch, and Tortosa and the heavily forti-

fied castles of Crac des Chevaliers, Mara ab, and Chas-

tel Blanc.

Postscript: The Aftermath Saladin captured Jerusalem on October 2, 1187,

and took the holy city without the bloodbath and looting seen eighty-eight years before. A ransom was arran ged for Christians who wished to leave and could pay the

tax. The Christians for their part

scavenged in their own churches, stripped them of their

ornaments and carried off candelabra and vases of gold and silver, gold and silken curtains and draperi es. . . The Grand

sathered up all that stood above the Sepulcher, the

its fate; some advised him to demolish

ing

of it, making it impossible to visit, removing its statues, ¢ away its errors, extinguishing its lig hts, destroying its Testaments, eliminating its false allurements, declaring its affirma-

2

and gold and silver artifacts, and collected he contents of the Church of the Resurrection.227

the 4

the Masjid al-Aqsa, the Church of the Resurrection s.... Saladin made no difficulties.3

reg 5

left the city with the treasures from the Dome of

Mo

.0 left went to Tyre. Some Christians could and

did

but wished to stay in Jerusalem and did so in

cc the

ste safety. Many could not pay, however, and re sold into slavery. jin immediately began to dismantle the eviof Crusader occupation of the Moslem holy [he mihrab of the Mosque al-Agsa was uncov-

dence pla ere

femplar structures were taken down and the

Aqsa

was reclaimed for Islam.329 “After the Friday

prayer Saladin gave orders for the restoration of al-

Aqsa, giving every encouragement to its embellishmen

t and having it faced with stone and fine mosaics.”>*

\t the top of the cupola of the Dome of the Rock there was a great gilded cross. When the Muslims entered the city on the Friday, some of them climbed to the top of the cupola to

take down the cross. When they reached the top a great cry went up from the city and from outside the walls, the Muslims crying the Allah akbar in their joy, the Franks groaning in consternation and grief. So loud and piercing was the cry that the earth shook.!

In this way, Imad ad-Din declared, “Jerusalem was

purified of the filth of the hellish Franks and had stripped off her vile garments to put on the robe of honour.”352

The Moslems debated what to do with the Christian

holy places. Initially, Saladin had the Church of the Resurrection closed to Christian visitors even as a refuge. Many discussions were held with him about

it and abolish

all

*y Said tions to be lies. “When its buildings are destroyed “and it is razed to the ground, and its sepulchre opened and destroyed, and its fires spent and extinguished and its traces rubbed out and removed, and its soil ploughed up, and the

Church scattered far and wide,

then the people will cease to

visit it, and the longings of those destined to damnation will no longer turn to seeing it,

whereas if it is left standing the pil-

grimage will go on without end.” But the majority said “Demolishing and destroying it would serve no purpose, nor

would it prevent the infidels from visiting it or prevent their having access to it. For it is not the building as it appears to the

eyes but the home of the Cross and the Sepulcher that is the object of worship. The various Christian races would still be

making pilgrimages here even if the earth had been dug up and thrown into the sky. And when “Umar, prince of the believers, conquered Jerusalem in the early days of Islam, he confirmed to the Christians the possession of the place, and did not order them to demolish the building on it.”

These accounts give us some indication of what hap-

pened to Crusader art after Hattin, in 1187. Some was taken down, some was destroyed, some was taken away, some was preserved. Moslem visitors wrote graffiti on some images that remained.** Some Crusader artists left the Holy Land and fled to Italy, some sculptors apparently went to Apulia.*® Some Crusader artists even continued to work in the Latin East,** but very few in the years before the arrival of the Third Crusade. However, those few artists bridged the gap between 1187 and 1191. When on July 12, 1191 the Third Crusade reconquered Acre and the Latin Kingdom was reestablished for another hundred years, the second phase of the art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land began.

vw

CHAPTER

11

Conclusions

Zee

“S SH

Ap

he period of the Crusader States in the

Levant, including the duration of their longest-lived component, the Latin A Kingdom of Jerusalem, spanned nearly

B4 KRS) two hundred years, of which the first Sea phase lasted from 1098 to 1187. As we

have seen in the years before 1187, artistic developments were remarkably continuous , if erratic, and

Proved to be quite diverse. Work increased in quantity in the middle and later years of the centu ry in spite of oftentimes difficult circumstances, Even though output in the various media differed enormously in amount

and quality from decade to decad e, overall there was

substantial output and productivity from beginning, in June 1098, when the Crusaders Antioch, and especially in July 1099, when saders conquered the holy city, to the very end

the very captured the Cruof phase

one, in October 1187, when Salad in took Jerusalem.

There can be no doubt that Crusader art was one of the great glories of twelfth-century Christendom in importance. It is equally clear that from this artistic production we have only very fragmentary remains. The art of the three major pilgrimage sites in particular provides excellent examples of how challenging it is for us to attempt to reconstruct by historical research the size of the undertakings, the identity of those Participating in the projects, the origin ality of the creative endeavors, and

the magnificence and unique characteristics of the final results. More than most medieval art, in fact, the

art of the Crusaders hes suffered over the years — and continues to suffer — trom religious squab-

built as much,” it is also true that the art and architecture of those who lived by the sword have endured severe damage at the hands of their enemies in the

intervening eight hundred some year s since 1187, Knowledge of Crusader art has increased

considerably since de Vogiié published his book in 1860, since

Enlart wrote in the 1920s, and since Boase’s first article in 1938-1939, or even since his latest work of 1977. We

have seen the art of the Crusaders to be much more than the title indicates. In the first plac e, it was hardly the Crusaders alone, that is, those who went on Cru-

sading expeditions, who commissioned art in the Holy Land in the period of the Crusader States. It was more accurately those who came to visit the holy sites; to administer the churches; to rule the kingdo m, principality, and counties; to fight the infidel; to protect the

pilgrims and peaceful travelers; to settle the land; to

farm; to carry on trade and commerce: to marry or intermarry with local Christians, or non-C hristians; and whose children or successors ¢:1 ied on, who sponsored this art. These people were kings, queens, princes, princesses, counts, countesses. d ukes, patri-

archs, bishops, priests, nuns, monks, Hospitalers, Templars, and members of other military orders, knights,

ladies, soldiers, merchants, farmers, piisrims, travelers, and visitors, among others. The artists as well were clearly drawn from more

than just the ranks of Westerners on Crusade, or those traveling on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. While there

were artists, that is, master builders or architects ,

painters, mosaicists, sculptors, stone-ma sons, gold-

bles, political turmoil, destr uction, neglect, and decay . Although

smiths, metalworkers, to name

it may be truly said of the prodigious Crusader architectural undertakings, “not even Herod

a few,! from western

Europe, including many from France and Italy, but also

those from England, Germany, and pres umably else474

oa

there were also many from the East. The latter

inc

Crusader artists, that is, those Franks born in

the Latin East and trained in the Crusader States an

- in the homelands of their ancestors, along with

Cl pr

n Greeks, Syrians, Arabs, Armenians, and y also some Moslem stonemasons who worked

on Crusader projects. What was the nature of the art commissioned by the Crusader” patrons and produced by these “Cru-

sader”

artists: Was Crusader art a colonial art? In the

1920s

Camille Enlart even called Crusader art, French

colonial art. What can we say now? Colonial art generally is artistic production sponsored ade by or for settlers who have left their homeland and have come to live elsewhere, usually in some distant location overseas. These colonists customarily cling to their social, political, economic, religious, cultural, and

artistic roots in identifying who they are. To consider the

case of the Crusaders, let us briefly compare the features of colonial art in North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the Crusader art we have discussed previously.2 Acknowledging that there have been many examples of colonial phenomena in world history and that some of the characteristics of “colonial art” may vary, we will find it nonetheless instructive to assess Crusader art in these terms. Consider the following aspects of colonialism and colonial art drawn from the American experience as a basis for evaluating Crusader artistic developments.* 1 Ina colonial setting, art is a secondary, not a primary, activity. Colonialism is not based on a policy of spreading art although artistic dissemination may in fact be a byproduct. with their parNo Colonists and colonial artists identify ent country, thus they do not see themselves as sepa-

rate or “other,” except perhaps geographically. They sponsor and make art that is an extension of the artistic traditions they knew and/or practiced at home. As a result, they tend to be conservative. They do not make a conscious effort to create something

new and different. They do not seek an autonomous identity that might lead them to make references across cultures or to cause cultural and artistic interpenetration.

3 Colonialism tends to generate many artists. On the profesone hand, art is usually not a person’s sole

done in sion in a colony, being rather something those hand, other the On else. ing someth addition to itinbe to tend ionals profess are colonial artists who . erant because of limited markets

4 Artists may come to the colony from the parent

be country as an opportunity. These artists may

oI

lesser talents who could not compete or competed badly back home. Artists coming from the homeland to the colony tend to come from outside the major centers.

The artistic

traditions with which they are familiar are therefore often provincial and retardataire, or several steps removed in quality from the high art of the contemporary period in the main centers of the parent country. 6 Colonial artists tend to use available models of works of art from the parent country. These are often functional, that is, examples for the necessities of life, and portable, that is, examples physically brought from home or drawn in model books. 7 Developments in colonial art are subject to several factors in addition to those mentioned above:

a Colonial artists tend to use local materials, which may also help to determine what types of art they produce, at first and later on. b As the colonists become more settled, they will tend to import art as well as artists from the home country. This will bring contemporary high art into the colony and act to stimulate part-time artists and second-rate talent. Intime, the influence of local artistic traditions on colonial art must be considered. Because of the colonial outlook, however, there is unlikely to be decisive influence from this source. In North America, the colonists were little influenced by Indian art. 8 Religion has a tremendous impact on the nature of certain aspects of colonial art. c

To what extent did these features characterize the art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land during the twelfth century? In considering these aspects point by point, the essential historical distinctions in the two situations must be kept in mind. Crusader historians have discussed the Crusader States as a colonial society, but the Crusader experience was distinct from that of colonial America.* Whereas for the Crusaders, Jerusalem was

the center of the world, for the colonists in North America, England or France (or Spain) was the center of their world and the new world was a wilderness of the unknown and the uncivilized. Whereas for the Crusaders their motivation was largely focused on taking control of the holy sites, especially those of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, bringing them out of Moslem and into Christian hands, and aiding their Eastern Christian brethren, for the colonists of North America the age of exploration was driven by very different economic, political, and religious motivations. To what extent then was Crusader art a colonial art?

1. Though the Crusader States were not established to promote the spread of art, the existence of the major holy sites in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem did focus

selves as separate from their European ancestry as time went on. As Fulcher of Chartres wrote in the 1120s, “Bor we who were Occidentals have now become Ori-

seen, these holy places did become primary foci for artistic endeavor by which the sponsors and the artists meant to express the unique importance of these sites in the medieval Christian world. In those areas where holy places were less important, less numerous, and/or much less well known, such as in the Principality of Antioch, the County of Edessa, and the County of

become a citizen of Tyre or Antioch. We have already forgotten the places of our birth; already these are unknown to many of us or not mentioned any more.”5

dents and much less for the pilgrims. Artistic endeavors in those regions were similar to the Latin Kingdom otherwise in terms of coinage, metalwork, painting, sculpture, ecclesiastical structures and their decoration, and fortifications and their embellishment when the differences in political leadership, in religious circum-

the 1170s. Nonetheless, Crusader artists did experience

attention on their artistic presence. Indeed, as we have

Tripoli, art was produced much more for the local resi-

stances, and in population and materials available are taken into consideration. There can be no doubt, how-

ever, that art was central for the Latin Kingdom in the twelfth century because of the large number of major and minor holy sites, because of strong patronage, because of the polyglot population, and because of vigorous trade and commerce. 2. The identification of Crusader art, Crusader

patrons, and Crusader artists with a parent country or homeland that is “other” is complicated because the artists came from so many different places, some European, some

elsewhere, whereas the patrons were

mostly either western Europeans or Frankish settlers of European stock. Many of the sponsors and the artists were encountering the Holy Land and the Eastern Christian artistic ambiente for the first time in the early twelfth century. But the mix of newcomers and settlers was changing throughout the period from 1099 to 1187.

entals. ... He who was of Rheims or Chartres has now

Nonetheless, the individual circumstances of each pro-

ject also played a role in the artistic outcome. Obviously, for example, the situation was different at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 1169, as compared to the Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth in and participate in cultural interpenetration and artistic exchanges from an early point in the life of the Crusader States. As a result, extremely conservative and colonialistic views, such as Enlart’s contention that some Crusader churches would not look out of place in

certain major regions of France, are only partly true. No matter how Romanesque these churches appeared in architectural design, decoration, and function, they were ultimately built with local Levantine materials and labor for Crusader practical and liturgical circumstances and usually shared the hybrid characteristics found in painting and sculpture, albeit generally to a somewhat lesser degree. It is important to recognize the Levantine aspect of Crusader architecture and sculpture clearly, even while noting the more powerful impact Byzantium and the eastern Mediterranean had on Crusader painting. 3. There can be little doubt that there were many different artists who worked for the Crusader patrons and some of them may have also been “Crusaders” strictly speaking, that is, persons who took the cross and came

east on an expedition, although we know of few specifically in the twelfth century. Renghiera Renghieri, the putative Bolognese marble sculptor of the aedicule of the Holy Sepulcher, may be one example.° Many Crusader artists were itinerant, some were probably pilgrims to the Holy Land. Rarely do we have the opportunity to see the hand of the same artist in more than one

Because many artists and sponsors were experienc-

ing the Levant for the first time, many were also seriously confronting Byzantine art, the most venerable Christian artistic tradition in the East, for the first time

as well. The impact of these experiences caused much Crusader art to be hybrid, reflecting to some considerable degree the impressive Byzantine art the Crusaders encountered. Thus Crusader art was different from art in the parent lands of Europe, partly because it was done by such a variety of artists from different backgrounds, partly because of the pluralistic artistic context in which they worked, and partly because they were more heavily influenced by Byzantine art and other art of the Orthodox tradition, seen more immediately and directly than was possible in most of western Europe. Crusader artists and patrons did come to see them-

work. However, many must have been resicents, either

settlers from Europe or offspring of settlers. 4. The level of quality in Crusader art is remarkably

high, and some work is unparalleled elsewhere. The

variety of artists who worked on the Melisende Psalter, on the Bethlehem mosaics, on the Nazareth sculptures,

and in the Templar atelier in Jerusalem gives us good

large samples to assess their qualitative range. Whereas very little inferior work survives from the twelfth century, we cannot know the totality of how much — excellent, good, and not so good — was done, because sO

much Crusader art has been destroyed. Certain modest

476

works

2*e extant, such as the Berlin ampullae from

imports, as is metalwork, reflected in the reliquaries of

Pnere is evidence that artists from various 5. provin | areas did work in the Holy Land for Cru-

the True Cross, for example. This means that from the very early developments of Crusader art, important high-art examples were available, thus partly explain-

sader

ing the high quality of Crusader artistic output.

Jerusalem, but there must have been much more.

patrons, some from Europe, and some from

Byzantium. There is also evidence that styles and other artistic developments that originated in Europe or Byzantium did find their way to the Crusader States. In the first case, we have seen evidence for some artists from p

vincial France and Italy, particularly sculptors,

seem to but in regard to Byzantium most of the artists reflect the court-centered art from Constantinople instead of the provincial traditions of Syria-Palestine.

In the second case, aspects of, for example, the Nazareth

capitals and the gothic architecture of the Cathedral of have St. John in Sebaste and the Coenaculum appear to

been derived from France, but the chronological rela-

tionship is loose, the work in the Holy Land cannot be seen as done in the same artistic continuum, and the

Crusader work essentially stands independently of its Western sources. In the Crusader East there is, moreover, evidence to suggest that some artistic ideas origi-

nated in the Latin Kingdom and then “went West” to flourish in European regions, such as Apulia. 6. The first Crusader art was mainly realized in coinage. It is clear from what we have seen that models from Europe and Byzantium, as well as the Islamic East, were used in creating distinctive Crusader numismatic designs. Thus functional models from home were combined with similar exemplars from the LevIt is ant in the designing and production of new coins. g, paintin harder to assess the early developments in in surely large-scale sculpture, and architecture, but onal functi manuscript illumination and metalwork the early models were also physically brought with Crusaders and settlers. ed with 7a. It is obvious that Crusader artists work nt in evide ly local materials, and this is most dramatical

coins in cases in which, for example, they minted gold in the nt curre y the East before such coinage was widel

in the local West at the time; the sculpture was done as the finesuch , stone that often differed remarkably the black to ast contr in grained limestone of Nazareth gingerly and ally gradu basalt of Belvoir; the painters and the experimented with icons on wood panels;

from the abunarchitecture was built with vaults made for which roofs, en wood dant local stone instead of

supplies of timber were severely limited and no doubt very expensive.

7c. The Byzantine artistic tradition was the dominant local tradition the Crusaders encountered, but this was a rich tradition with a number of local variants. Aristocratic Crusader patrons wished to emulate the courtly Constantinopolitan Byzantines, and this set a standard that was favored when the Crusaders also looked sympathetically at art from provincial Greek, Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox sources. There can be no doubt of the continuing importance of the Byzantine artistic impact on the Crusaders, but it was manifested mainly in painting, whether in manuscripts, frescoes, mosaics, or icons. 8. If the Crusader States were linked politically and economically to the West, because of the diversity of the links, they also were somewhat independent, but the n. ties were strongest and most direct in terms of religio the of most y Despite the fact that in the twelfth centur Crusader kings and the Latin patriarchs of Jerusalem ran and Antioch were French, the economic links Italian the lly especia through the ships and ports of a lesser maritime powers, such as Genoa, Pisa and, to agency n Wester one the extent, Venice. The church was the that church the h throug that was dominant. It was uing contin a on tied closely Crusader States were most These ties basis to the West, and especially to Rome. legates to his pope, the of person were manifested in the rchs he patria der Crusa the in the Latin East, and abbots, the and ed, approv he s appointed, the bishop who orders various the of s master and abbesses, priors, These him. increasingly answered directly to went on time as but ners, Wester often appointees were experisome in the twelfth century they often had had case, any In ence in the Latin East as they moved up. s eristic charact the Latin religion was one of the defining was art er Crusad of what it meant to be Crusader, and century. Thus, overwhelmingly religious in the twelfth West: political the with although there were other links also military, and and economic, as mentioned earlier, Crusades Second and First especially in the form of the singly increa and ally before 1187, financial, especi centhe as rs Templa the and through the Hospitalers and s uage lang of terms in ral, wore on, and cultu n Roma the ch, chur the was it cultural backgrounds, tualliturgy, spiri Catholic religion, canon law, and Latin ive in the Crusader ity, and devotion that were decis

developed, the 7b. While the Crusader settlements the West

ience, artistic and otherwise. interacted When the Crusaders, the Frankish settlers, as Latin so did with the Levantine Christians, they

ts, from both settlers imported art and artis Byzantium. Manuscript from ly and also most especial rtant field for such illumination is a particularly impo

477

Catholics. One conspicuous example is the numerous kings of Jerusalem who were married to Orthodox women. Offspring of these kinds of marriages, Latin

Along with these three major holy places, there Were the other sites of Christ’s life, passion, and death, the places associated with the Virgin Mary and the Apos-

tles, and the sites of secondary significance in the hierarchy but no less intensive pilgrim interest, such as the shrines to St. John the Baptist in Sebaste, the Tomb of

Eastern Christians, saw experience from the Latin East,

not from the European West, and not from the Byzantine East. These Crusaders, their states, and their art

were between East and West, but decisively linked to the West through the Western church and Latin religion. In sum, it is clear that colonial features are found in

Crusader art just as they are found in Crusader society. We have seen the plans of Latin basilicas in the Romanesque mode, especially the pilgrimage road plan of the Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulcher. We have seen the ribbed vaulting in the choir of the Holy Sepul-

St. George in Lydda, the Oak of Mamre near Hebron,

and the Burning Bush in the Monastery of St. Catherine’s at Mount Sinai, to name a few examples. The Crysader States possessed special significance because they enclosed a sacred topography and much Crusader

art was commissioned to proclaim the importance of these sites for the pilgrims who came to visit, to pray, and to meditate on the events and holy people associated with these places.

cher and in the Coenaculum, and the case of Sens Cathe-

dral influencing the Cathedral of St. John at Sebaste in terms of sexpartite-plan ribbed vaults and architectural sculpture. We have seen the basic coin type of the billon denier, with the cross and encircling inscription on the obverse, and the image and encircling inscription on the

Crusader art is also defined by its Latinity, just like the religion in which it is rooted. Although we have

seen widespread evidence of the polyglot culture in which Crusader art grew and developed, most importantly with reference to Greek, Armenian, Syriac, and

Arabic, the language of the Crusaders and of the Crusader church especially, was Latin. We experience this in the texts of the manuscripts decorated by Crusader

reverse, in the western European mode. We have seen

reflections of Western style and iconography in Crusader painting and sculpture. However, these characteristics are only part of the whole and not necessarily the major part, and they form aspects of what is a complex, richly variegated and independent artistic development that combines East and West throughout the twelfth century. It is therefore possible to speak of colonialism in Crusader art, but it is not accurate to speak of Crusader art as simply a colonial art.” What are other important aspects of Crusader art? What is Crusader art in the twelfth century? First and foremost, Crusader art was a pilgrimage art in the

miniature painters, in the texts of the various historians

who tell the story of the Crusades and the Latin Kingdom, in the writings of many of the pilgrims in the twelfth century, and in the extraordinary number of

inscriptions quoted for us in the accounts of those pilgrims, some few of which survive on the actual objects themselves. We also experience the Latinity of Crusader art in the wide range of Western artistic traditions from France and Italy that it reflects, directly and indirectly. Although Crusader Art in the twelfth century is clearly pilgrimage art, distinguished by its Latinity, it is also a court art, an art of the aristocracy. Insofar as the royal family was one of the major patrons of Crusader

twelfth century, an art that was stimulated, nourished,

and commissioned around and through the great and not-so-great sites of the Holy Land. We have seen how large and how complex the greatest artistic projects were at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and at the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth. We can with the help of the pilgrims’ accounts attempt to reconstruct the impressiveness of some of those projects along with what remains in situ. It is nonetheless difficult to appreciate the glory and splendor of the Crusader artistic achievements when visiting these places today. They were in their day the greatest, the most

art, it was an art for the Crusader court as an entity

meant to compare favorably with that of the Byzantines in Constantinople. Thus the regalia o! the crown was a court art; the design of the coinaze

was an

increasingly carefully utilized royal prerogative in the Latin Kingdom; the private and sumptuous

“'salter of

Melisende was the Crusader example par exccilence of

the illustrated royal book that would become the hallmark of French royalty in the thirteenth century; and the tombs of the Crusader kings located the court in Jerusalem, associated with the Holy Sepuicher at the center of the world. Furthermore, just as Crusader art was an art for royalty, it was also an art for the aristoc-

important artistic achievements because these were the holiest sites in Christendom and Crusader motivation was to make them the glorious center of their world: a physical world that stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Dead Sea, a spiritual world that stretched from Iona, Santiago, Rome, and Jerusalem the Golden to the holy city, the Heavenly Jerusalem.

racy, for the feudal barons and the military orders, for the church in the Holy Land, and even for the Italian merchants.

478

are some of the major questions Crusader art cel Cru

its very existence? Crusader art of the twelfth ‘learly establishes the basis of what constitutes r art of the thirteenth century. The existence of

Cru

r art as an independent development in the

of the world was important as a source of generation and inspiration in Crusader art. The dualism of the spiritual and the material informed every work of twelfth-century art in Outremer, but it also gave to the

ian art in the Byzantine Empire, Armenian art in CiliSyriac painting in Syria-Palestine. Was Crusader art cia,

art of the holy places a special character that other works did not possess. Because of this unique importance, it is increasingly the case as the twelfth century moved along that we cannot understand developments in Byzantium or western Europe without a basic understanding of the art of the Crusader East. We must acknowledge that great gaps still remain in what we have for evidence. In the manuscripts, the

a major influence on the Byzantines, starting with the

sculpture, and the metalwork we must leap over hiatus

Lat

st, between East and West as it were, clearly

als ous

es the problem of its relationships to the varicontemporary artistic movements in Europe and

Byzantium: Romanesque art, the birth of Gothic, the

1200, Gothic realism, the lingua franca, Comnen-

Year

twelfth century, 1204, and the rise of Palaeologan late pain >? Was Crusader art a primary carrier of the Byzantine tradition to the West? What was the impact

of Crusader art directly on the West? Over and over we have encountered specific artistic

connections between the Crusaders and developments in the West. In the past these relationships have mostly been interpreted to flow from West to East. Examples

are the coinage of Toulouse as related to Tripoli; the sculpture of Fontevrault as related to the Dome of the Ascension and the Qubbat al-Miraj; the figural sculp-

ture of Tuscany and the Abruzzi as related to the lintels on the Holy Sepulcher; the mosaics of Sicily as related to those of the Holy Sepulcher and the Church of the Nativity; Umbro-Roman manuscript illumination and miniatures painted in the scriptorium of the Holy Sepulcher; Romanesque sculpture of the Rhone Valley, Berri, and Burgundy and the Nazareth workshop style; and the foliate sculpture of Apulia as related to the work of the Templar atelier. In fact, however, we have found that by contextualizing these various Crusader works as specifically as possible and dealing with them on their own merits, they become “liberated” from external developments going on in the West. Not only is it consistently evident that the Crusader works should be dated quite separately from the art of the West but also that sometimes the Crusader works may have indeed inspired Western artists. De Vogiié, in his article on the are brisé at the

cistern of Ramla, states the case very explicitly for East-

ern influence on the West.? Using his formulation, with reference to the above cases, we can perhaps see what was

dire ciea

The centrality of Jerusalem in

cal and world view as the heavenly city and the center

after hiatus, which necessity indicates that the losses in the art must have been enormous. For certain media, mentioned above, we have almost no twelfth-century material.!! We do not know how much art was produced, but from all indications it was a substantial amount for local and pilgrimage consumption. As yet we have no way to assess the amount very accurately. Clearly the descriptions of Crusader wealth reported by Imad ad-Din and Ibn al-Athir when Saladin took Jerusalem help us to realize that much portable art was produced and much was lost one way or another after the Moslem conquest of 1187. What were some of the major accomplishments of Crusader art? What were some of its enduring characteristics? What is Crusader about Crusader art? What have we learned about Crusader art? Clearly we have discovered that no one source or example can fully reveal the complexity and variety of Crusader art. It is only by the careful study of each work seen in the context of the Crusader States and assessed in relation to the full range of what we know to be Crusader art that we can hope to know what Crusader art was. As we understand more fully what Crusader art was, we will also learn to recognize more Crusader art, wherever it currently may be. In architecture, the pilgrimage church was the major Crusader contribution, but it is obvious that Crusader pilgrimage churches varied considerably depending on the local circumstances.” The flexibility of the architecture to meet the needs of the pilgrimage site was one of the important Crusader characteristics. The major buildings were impressive. The Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulcher ranks with the greatest accomplishments of pilgrimage architecture in the West. In painting, the merging of East and West and the range of possibilities for emphasis were truly impressive in all major media: manuscript illumination, frescoes, mosaics, and icons. the Moreover, the projects in the Holy Sepulcher and in ranked Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem must be with the twelfth-century monuments in Sicily and

479

Sic describendo venerabilia loca in sancta civitate Jerusalem incipiendo ab ecclesia sancti sepulchri, . . . plures omittendo capellas et inferiores ecclesias, quas habent ibi diversarum

Venice in their overall size and importance. In monumental stone sculpture, the importance of the Romanesque West is evident in providing sources of inspiration, but the stylistic quality and the unique iconography of the work at Nazareth and from the

nationum et linguarum homines. Sunt namque ibi graeg

bulgari, latini, alemanni, hungari, scoti, navarri, britannj, angli, franci, rutheni, bohemi, georgiani, armeni, jacobitae,

artists of the Templar atelier in Jerusalem, in particular,

demonstrated the capacity for originality and creativity of a high degree in the Crusader East. In metalwork, the only medium in which we have any sort of comprehensive idea for the artistic achievements is in numismatics. Crusader coins vividly reflect their multicultural environment, particularly in the early twelfth century. Even though it is clear that goldsmiths’ work was also a major industry, we know much less about it, but there can be no doubt that the pilgrimage trade and the importance of the True Cross for the Latin Kingdom inspired a steady and distinctive output in reliquaries and pilgrims’ souvenirs that also bear the distinctive imprint of their Crusader artistic origins. Crusader art is, then, an independent development with ties to many medieval traditions. It demonstrates originality and creativity inspired by the importance of the patrons and the holy and special places it served. Crusader art shows distinctive development over the course of the twelfth century, from its significant but ~ meager early years to the Bliitezeit in the time of Melisende, the heavily Byzantine-influenced years

under the reigns of Baldwin III and Amaury I, and the extraordinary accomplishments of works sponsored by the Templars, the archbishop of Nazareth, the royal

suriani, nestoriani, indi, aegyptii, copti, capheturici, maroni a alii quamplures, quos longum esset enumerare, sed in his

finem hujus opusculi faciemus. Amen.!% Thus I have finished describing the Holy Places in the Holy City Jerusalem. I started with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, . . . |omitted a great many chapels and churches of minor interest, which hold people of every race and tongue, For there are Greeks, Bulgars, Latins, Germans, Hungarians,

Scots, people of Navarre, Britons, Angles, Franks, Rutheni-

ans, Bohemians, Georgians, Armenians, Jacobites, Syrians, Nestorians, Indians, Egyptians, Copts, Capheturici, Maronites and many others, which it would be a long task to list. But in these men we make an end to our book. Amen.!4

Postscript Just as we began our study with a statement by William of Tyre, we also wish to end by using his

words in this memorable prayer: Scientes tamen quoniam in multiloquio non solet deesse peccatum et miseri hominis lingua in lubrico posita penam facile meretur, invitamus fraterne et exhortamur in domino nos-

trum lectorem ut, cum iustum reprehensionis locum invenerit, caritate media utatur ea licenter et de nostra correctione sibi acquirat eterne vite premium memorque nostri in suis orationibus impetret nobis apud dominum, ut quicquid in opere presenti deliquimus nobis non imputet ad mortem, sed de gratuita bonitate et inolita pietate clementer indulgeat Salvator mundi.'§

family, and the Austin canons in the last fifteen or

twenty years prior to 1187. The development is not a straight-line paradigm, however; rather it must be seen in terms of initiative, experimentation, maturation, innovation, variegation, and integration in a rich Lev-

Paraphrased in less sexist language for my modern

antine setting. Crusader art was the response of Frankish patrons and their artists to the orientalism and

readers, this prayer can be rendered as follows:

Christian multiculturalism of the Latin East, exciting

We know well, . . . that error is ever wont to attend a multitude of words, and that the tongue of a poor mortal easily

creative ideas of style and iconography, meaning and content, which were integrated with the Western traditions that were their heritage, directly or indirectly, to produce a distinctive and original result. It is difficult for us in the twentieth century to imagine the impact of the Crusader context in the Levant on the patrons who commissioned artistic work and the artists who carried it out. What it meant to encounter the religious and artistic traditions of so many different Christian peoples is, however, at the heart of what Crusader art was and why it looked the way it did. Of this Christian multiculturalism that stands at the basis of

incurs guilt. In a spirit of brotherly and sisterly affection, therefore, we invite and exhort our reader in the Lord, that, if you find a real point to criticize, you seize upon it without hesitation, with true kindness, and, by correctimg our sin, win for yourself the reward of eternal life.

May you also remember us in your prayers and thereby win favor for us with the Lord, that, wher:

in this work

we have fallen into error, it may not be imputed to us for death. May the Saviour of the world, out of His abounding goodness and never-failing mercy, graciously pardon us.®

Crusader art, we have a sterling witness in the person

of the pilgrim John of Wiirzburg:

480

Notes

6.

Introduction

ib

ish colonists see, M.L. Bulst-Thiele, “Die Mosaiken der ‘Auferstehungskirche’ in Jerusalem und die Bauten der ‘Franken’ im 12. Jahrhundert,” FS, Bd. 13 (1979), pp. 442-443. On the colonial aspect of the Crusader States,

Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi, Chronicon, ed. R.B.C. Huygens with H.E. Mayer and G. Rosch, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, vol. LXII, Turnholt,

see J. Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages, London, 1972; J. Richard, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, trans. J. Shirley, Amster-

1986, Prologue, p. 99. William Archbishop of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done beyond the Sea, trans. E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey, Records of Civilization, vol. XXXV, New York, 1943, Prologue, pp. 54-55. H.E. Mayer et al., “Select Bibliography of the Cru-

dam-New York-Oxford, 1979, 2 vols. On the definition of a Crusader, see J. Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades?, London and Basingstoke, 1977, pp. 54-73, and idem, “Peace Never Established: The Case of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 28 (1978), pp. 87-88. See also J.A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1969, pp. 30-190. J. Riley-Smith has also pointed out that there are certain works commissioned by kings — Henry III or Frederick II, for example — who took the cross, but who were located in the West when the work was done. Should this be considered “Crusader art”? For the purposes of this study, such commissions are considered Crusader only when the work was done in the Latin Orient. Furthermore, this phenomenon is an important issue primarily in the period between 1187 and 1291 and it will be dealt with in the succeeding study. Art historical challenges to the idea of or attributions of monuments of Crusader art have been formulated by the following: H. Belting, “Zwischen Gotik und Byzanz: Gedanken zur Geschichte der sachsischen Buchmalerei im 13. Jahrhundert,” ZfiirK, 41 (1978), esp. pp. 246ff., O. Demus, review of K.M. Setton, HC, vol. IV, ed. H.W. Hazard, The Art and Architecture ofthe Crusader States, Madison and London, 1977, for AB, 61

sades,” in K.M. Setton, ed., HC, vol. VI, Madison and

London, 1989, pp. 511-664. T.S.R. Boase and A.H.S. Megaw, “The Arts in Cyprus,”

and T.S.R. Boase and DJ. Wallace, “The Arts in Frankish Greece and Rhodes,” in K.M. Setton, HC, vol. IV,

ed. H.W. Hazard, The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, Madison and London, 1977, chs. 5 and 6,

respectively, pp. 165-250. There has also been a recent English translation of Camille Enlart’s classic study on Crusader art in Cyprus first published in French in

1899: Gothic Art and the Renaissance in Cyprus, trans. and ed. David Hunt, London, 1987, introduction by N. Coldstream.

In the upcoming years, 1994-1999, a number of spe-

cial conferences are planned that will give new impe-

tus to the study of this material, especially that pertain-

ut

On the notion of “Crusader art” as the art of the Frank-

ing to Cyprus. On the former question, see J. Riley-Smith, What Were

the Crusades?, London and Basingstoke, 1977, esp. PP-

and its ful54-73, with particular reference to the vow

fillment. On the latter, see my conference paper “What

Is Crusader Art?” to be submitted to an art-historical

journal in the near future.

481

10.

(1979), pp. 636-637, Doula Mouriki, “Thirteenth-Cen-

Mosaiken der ‘Auferstehungskirche’ in Jerusalem,”

pp- 442-446.

atic attempt to deal with the castles in a book pub-

L.-A. Hunt, “Art and Colonialism: The Mosaics of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (1169) and the Problem of ‘Crusader’ Art,” DOP, 45 (1991), pp. 69-85. As I write this in 1993, Dr. Denys Pringle (Edinburgh) is presently preparing a corpus of Crusader churches of which the first volume has appeared (see R.D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of

lished in 1871: see nt. 14.

11.

Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. I, Cambridge, 1993, and idem,

“Les Edifices ecclesiastiques du royaume latin de Jerusalem,” RB, 89 [1982], pp. 92-98); Dr. Zehava

Jacoby (Haifa) is currently at work on a corpus of Crusader sculpture; Dr. Bianca Ktihnel (Jerusalem) is

working on a study of Crusader minor arts; and Dr.

ibe.

See G. Kiihnel, “Das Ausschmiickungsprogramm der Geburtsbasilika in Bethlehem. Byzanz und Abendland im K6nigreich Jerusalem,” Boreas, 10 (1987), pp. 133-149, and Plates 12-16; reference is made to a forthcoming larger study of the mosaics in idem, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Berlin, 1988, Passim. It is puzzling why de Vogiié takes so little note of the column paintings, cf. Les Eglises, p. 70, but perhaps their condition made them virtually invisible in any detail. De Vogiié, Les Eglises, p. 120, nt. 1. The study of the

Gustav Kiihnel (Jerusalem) is working on Crusader

Holy Sepulcher by Robert Willis was important

mosaics in the Latin Kingdom. As for the coins, P. Grierson currently plans to devote part of vol. 13 of his multivolume catalogue on Medieval European Coinage

because it introduced the first measured drawings of the building, drawings on which de Vogiié expanded: see G. Williams, The Holy City: Historical, Topographical,

to Crusader coins, and D.M. Metcalf is at work on a

and Antiquarian Notices of Jerusalem, 2nd ed., vol. 2,

revised and enlarged version of his Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East.

13.

London, 1849, pp. 129-294, with six plates. De la Chenaye-Desbois et Badier, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, vol. 19, 3rd ed., Paris, 1876, rpt. Nendeln/ Liechtenstein, 1969, col. 913ff., Raoul de Warren, Grand Armorial de France, vol. 6, nouv. ed., Paris,

Chapter 1

1.

Castles and fortifications, secular domestic buildings

and urban architecture of a nonreligious nature wo more difficult to specify. De Vogiié did not recognize the extensive Crusader fabric of the cities of Jerusalem and especially Acre. E.G. Rey makes the first system-

tury Icon Painting in Cyprus,” The Griffon, n.s. 1-2 (1985-1986), passim. See also M.L. Bulst-Thiele, “Die

C.-J.-Melchior, Comte de Vogiié, Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, Paris, 1860, rpt. with preface and bibliographical supplement by J. Prawer, Toronto, 1973. The work of the Comte de Vogiié is to be distinguished from other prominent orientalists who touched on the Crusaders en passant, e.g., Louis Felicien de Saulcy

14.

(1807-1880), who wrote his Numtismatique des Croisades,

published in Paris in 1847.

15: 16.

Ibid., pp. 392-393. MJ. Wigley, Archaeological Studies in Jerusalem, London, 1856. The English were also in the Near East during the Napoleonic period, but their main interests were

17. 18.

1949, rpt. Paris, 1975, p. 493. E.-G. Rey, Etude sur les Monuments de l'Architecture Militaire des Croisés en Syrie et dans l’ile de Chypre, Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, series 1: Histoire politique, Paris, 1871. See also, on Rey, the comments of Henry Bordeaux,

Voyageurs d’Orient, vol. 1,

Paris, 1926, pp. 77-100. Rey, Etude sur les Monuments, pp. 12-18. Ibid., p. 8 and passim. It should also be noted that Rey refers often to E.E. Viollet-le-Duc’s Dictionnaire d’architecture.

farther east, in India, and their early contributions on

the Holy Land came mainly from travel accounts and studies of Jerusalem. Besides Wigley, there was also the important study by G. Williams, The Holy City: Historical, Topographical, and Antiquarian Notices of Jerusalem, which in its second edition, London, 1849,

contained “An Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” by R. Willis, pp. 129-276, one of the first attempts to discuss the history of the church including its Crusader components. De Vogiié, Les Eglises, pp. 27-45.

Rey, Etude sur les Monuments, p. 282. The titles of these volumes indicate something of the scope of the project: The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem, by C. Warren and C.R. Conder, London, 1884, and The Survey of Western Palestine:

Memoirs ofthe

Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archaeology, by C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener, vol. {, Galilee, London, 1881, vol. II, Samaria, London, 1882, vol. IIL, Judaea, London, 1883.

English artists who traveled in the Holy Land reflected similar broad-based interests. One of the best known was David Roberts, who journeyed to the Near East in 1838-1839, making drawings of the interesting and important things he saw. From these drawings,

Ibid., p. 24.

Ibid., pp. 27-28.

lithographs, now quite famous, were first published in London in 1842. A new edition recently appeared: David Roberts, R.A., The Holy Land, Tel Aviv, 1982. For

Ibid., p. 37. Ibid., pp. 38, 39. -Fih oe tohert Ibid., pp. 38, 95, and 221, nt. 1.

further comments on the artists and photographers at

482

this time, see J. Folda, “Crusader Art and Architecture: \ Photographic Survey,” HC, IV, pp. 281-285.

German scholars at this time were also active in the

study of Crusader monuments as part of their interest in the archeology and history of the Holy Land, as the

A.K. Porter, Romanesque

Art of the Pilgrimage

Roads

archeological investigations quite broadly without

Boston, 1928, among others. We can also remember the French view of the Crusades vis-a-vis their own presence in the Near East in the 1920s as the context in which Enlart worked. This view is articulated, for example, by Henry Bordeaux (Voyageurs d’Orient, vol 1, p. 292): “J’ai vu les derniers Croisés aux confins du

being restricted to Crusader monuments. In 1873-1874,

désert de Syrie, et ce sont nos soldats qui y montent la

Clermont-Ganneau, for example, studied aspects of

garde.” Enlart even refers to the “l’évangéliaire de la reine Melissende” (Les Monuments des Croisés, vol. 1, p. 199) in regard to its ivory bookcovers. Included in the addi-

publications of the Deutschen Palastinaverein indicate,

and Frenchmen such as C. Clermont-Ganneau and M. Van Berchem did pioneering work, pursuing their

the major Crusader monuments

in Jerusalem, work

that was subsequently published in Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Year 1873-1874, Lon-

NN

when important challenges to French artistic primacy in the high Middle Ages were being faced; see, e.g.,

don, 1896-1899, 2 vols.

tions and corrections at the end of vol. II is a further

John of Wurzburg (ca. 1170), ch. 13, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 264-265.

explanatory note that states: “Les peintures qui illus-

Charles Diehl, “Les Monuments de l’Orient Latin,” ROL, vol. 5 (1897), pp. 293-310.

trent son texte latin sont byzantines” (ibid., vol. II, p. 470). Rémy Delauney was responsible for preparing these additions, and it seems that Enlart himself never

Camille Enlart, L’Art gothique et de la Renaissance en

saw the Melisende Psalter firsthand. Thus, although he

Chypre, Paris, 1899, 2 vols. This work has recently been translated into English by David Hunt as C. Enlart, Gothic Art and the Renaissance on Cyprus, London, 1987,

knew the existence of the manuscript that would become the central example of Crusader book illumi-

with an introduction by Dr. Nicola Coldstream. Camille Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés dans le Roy-

aume de Jérusalem: Architecture religieuse et civile, Bibliothéque archéologique et historique, tomes VII, with atlas, and VIII: Paris, vol. I, 1925, atlas, 1926, vol. Il,

1928. Vol. Il was published posthumously with the collaboration of Rémy Delauney. Ibid., vol. I, pp. VII-VIIL. Ibid., pp. XI-XVL H. Vincent and F.-M. Abel, Jérusalem: Recherches de

topographie, d’archéologie et d'histoire, vol. Il: Jérusalem nouvelle, Paris, fasc. I-II: 1914, fasc. Ill: 1922, fasc. IV: 1926.

Enlart also relies heavily on the seven-volume description of Palestine by Victor Guérin, whose name is curiously omitted from the avant-propos, but who appears constantly in the footnotes of vol. II: V. Guérin, Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine: Judée, in 3 vols., Paris, 1868-1869; Samarie, in 2

vols., Paris, 1874-1875; and Galilée, in 2 vols., Paris, 1880.

Although he cited earlier studies such as A. Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche, Leipzig, 1908, he appears not to have known the most important monograph on the Church of the Holy Sepulcher published outside of France in these years: K. Schmaltz, Mater Ecclesiarum: Die Grabeskirche in Jerusalem, Strassburg, 1918.

Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, vol. I, p. 1. NS Ibid., p. 32. NNW 6] i> E. Bertaux, L’Art dans I'Italie méridionale, Paris, 1904. If

Enlart seems somewhat stridently nationalistic to our minds, we should recall the nature of his hypothesis stated above and the fact that he worked at a time

nation in Buchthal’s later study (Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford, 1957, p. 1ff.), Enlart was still focused primarily on architecture and did not yet envision manuscript illustration as a major

part of the Crusader repertoire. Paul Deschamps, Les Chateaux des Croisés en Terre Sainte, Bibliothéque archéologique et historique: tome XIX with album, Le Crac des Chevaliers, Paris, 1934; tome XXXIV with album, La Défense du Royaume de Jérusalem, Paris, 1939; and tome XC with album, La

Défense du Comte de Tripoli et de la Principauté d’Antioche,

Paris, 1973. The quote above appears in Le Crac des Chevaliers, pp. ix-x. Note that although the last volume is dated 1973 on the title page, the publication did not appear until after Paul Deschamps died in 1974. Bashford Dean, “The Exploration of a Crusaders’ Fortress (Montfort) in Palestine,” BMMA, New York, XXII, part II (1927), pp. 91-97. In the meantime few attempts have been made to excavate other castles, but apart from the work of Deschamps only the reports on ‘Athlit have been published, and the now not-so-recent excavations at Belvoir have still not appeared in any form save a brief report in Hebrew. For “Athlit, see C.N. Johns, “Excavations at Pilgrim’s Castle (‘Atlit),” QDAP, I-IV (1932-1938). Deschamps, Le Crac des Chevaliers, p. xix, idem, La Défense du Comté de Tripoli, p. x. The plans of Crac des Chevaliers are the most famous example of this work. Deschamps, Le Crac des Chevaliers, album. Following the important work of nineteenth-century French photographers, and especially that of Louis de Clercq, whose studies of these castles are unique documents and beautiful as photography (Voyage en Orient: Chateaux du temps des Croisades, [n-p.] 1859-1860), the

who can perhaps best claim to be Lawrence’s SUCCessop

aerial views of these buildings, made possible by

French military photographers, marks a new departure that has been followed in our time mainly by English photographers such as Richard Cleave. 35. 36. BT: 38. 39.

to the study of Crusader architecture ip the Near East

yet another Oxonian, R. Denys Pringle. {.g wrence hing self has been the subject of two majo r stud ies by M,

T.S.R. Boase, “The Arts in the Latin Kingdom of

Jerusalem,” JWCI, I (1938/1939), Ibid. p. 4. Ibid., p. 14. Ibid., p. 20. T.S.R. Boase, Castles and Churches dom, London, 1967. I remember ery” of this brand new book at

Lares, T.E. Laurence, la France et les } rancais, 2 Vols., Lille, 1978; and idem, Laurence d’ Aral) le et les Ch

pp. 1-21. 47.

have been other works published recently that Boase

did not know, among which are the followin g: In

architecture, D. Bahat and R. Reich, “Une Eglise

médiévale dans le quartier juif de Jérusale m,” RB, 93 (1986), pp. 111-114, and D. Pringle, The Red Tower Lon,

don, 1986. In painting, K. Weitzmann, “Cru sader Icons

and Maniera Greca,” Byzanz und der Westen, Vienna

1984, pp. 143-170; R. Cormack and S. Mihalarias, “A

Crusader painting of St George: ‘maniera greca’ or ‘lin-

gua franca’?”, BM, 126 (1984), pp. 132-141; and J. Folda

et al., “Crusader Frescoes at Crac des Chevalie rs and

Marqab Castle,” DOP, 36 (1982), pp. 177-210. In sculp-

la Pierre-Qui-Vire, 1964, reprinted in 1990. This book in

41.

London, 1971. K.M. Setton, ed., HC, vol. IV, The Art and Architecture of

46.

to terms with, by H.

Buchthal, K. Weitzmann, and the Present autho r, there

fly back to the United States. I was surprised that Boase had said nothing to me about it. When asked, he said that he did not know when his work for A History of the Crusades was ever going to appear and, in the meantime, he had decided to publish his work in other formats. The first book devoted to Crusader art to use color photographic reproductions was in fact by Paul Deschamps, Terre Sainte Romane, Abbaye Ste.-Marie de the Zodiaque series is a synopsis of the views of Deschamps and again presents Crusader castles and churches as one of several schools of French Romanesque art. Boase quickly incorporated the results of recent publications by Hugo Buchthal and Kurt Weitzmann on Crusader manuscript illustration and icons, respectively. See H. Buchthal, Miniature Painting, 1957, and K. Weitzmann, “Thirteenth Century Crusader Icons on Mount Sinai,” AB, XLV (1963), pp. 179-203. T.S.R. Boase, Kingdoms and Strongholds of the Crusaders,

Besides the newly recognized manu scri Pts and icons Boase had started to come

of the Crusading Kingvividly my “discovFoyle’s in London in

the summer of 1967, the day before I was scheduled to

40.

ateay

des Croisés, Paris, 1980.

ture, the final publication of the Nazareth excav ations, B. Bagatti and E. Alliata, Gli Scavi di Nazaret, vol. IL, Dal secolo XII ad oggi, Jerusalem, 1984, and H.

Buschhausen, Die siiditalienische Bauplast ik im Konig-

48.

reich Jerusalem, Vienna, 1978. In metalwor k, L. KGtzsche, “Zwei Jerusalemer Pilgerampullen aus der Kreuzfahrerzeit,” ZfiirK, 51 (1988), pp. 13-32.

See, e.g., G. Kiihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom

of Jerusalem, Berlin, 1988, for wall painting, and for pilgrimage accounts, J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrimage:

1099-1185, London, 1988.

49,

See, e.g., B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States, London, 1980, p- 159ff., D. Pringle, “Church

the Crusader States, ed. H.W. Hazard, Madison and

London, 1977.

Building in Palestine before the Crusades,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, BAR Interna-

Ibid., p. 74. Ibid., p. 73.

Byzantine Illumination: 1150-1250, Chicago and Lon-

Boase gives a summary overview of T.E. Lawren ce,

Mosaics of the Church of the Nativity

tional series, 152, Oxford, 1982, pp. 5-46, A. Weyl Carr,

don, 1987, and L.-A. Hunt, “Art and Colonialism: The

Crusader Castles, London, 1936, in “The Arts in the

(1169) and the Problem of ‘Crusader

Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” p. 16, nt. 2. By 1977, his

interest in Lawrence's study was no less, but his estimate of its long-term value seemed to have declined:

Boase, “Military Architecture,”

(1991), pp. 69-85. 50. Si:

HC, IV, p. 140.

in Bethlehem Art,” DOP, 45

See above, “Introduction,” nts. 6-8.

We identify the pioneer in shifting historical attention Prawer, who published two major works after a career and to a Near Eastern perspective as Jos!ua

Lawrence's Crusader Castles was prepared as his B.A. thesis in 1909 while he was an undergraduate at Jesus

fresh research in the 1960s: Histoire di: Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, 2 vols., Paris, 1969-1970, 2nd ed., 1975, and

College, Oxford. It was published privately in 1936 by the Golden Cockerell Press a year after Lawrence died. Despite Boase’s objective view of the work and his perspective on its real contribution to the study of Cru-

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, London,

1972. Prawer

nicely characterizes the shift in 1972 as follows: “This Study is .. . an attempt to describe and analyse a medieval society transplanted to the Eastern Mediterranean, which created its own social and cultural pat-

sader castles, T.E. Lawrence and Crusader Castles have

enjoyed something of a revival in the 1980s, including a reprinting of the 1936 book by Michael Haag, London, in 1986, and a new edition of the thesis publis hed in 1988 by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, with an infor-

terns of existence beyond the physical and cultural boundaries of Europe” (Foreword). He affirms the idea of the Latin Kingdom as a colonial society, indeed he

mative scholarly introduction and notes, by the man

calls it the first European colonial society, a view sup-

484

ported by other historians subsequently. The idea of a

quoted the English translation, except where the exact

colonial society is acceptable, but only if qualified care-

wording of the Latin was required to make a point. For

fully, and we wish to emphasize the aspect of “its own social and cultural patterns of existence” in terms of the artistic development. Furthermore, although

inscriptions and other special passages, however, | have included the Latin text and a reliable English

clearly colonial politically, socially, ecclesiastically, and militarily, in certain aspects, we should like to draw

of the text is not otherwise discussed.

translation when necessary, that is, when the meaning

Besides the testimony of those who reported on Urban’s speech at Clermont, and that of William of

attention to its polyglot brand of colonialism with emphasis on the interaction of various European

Tyre, we also learn that Bohemond cut a garment into crosses to give to those who joined his Crusade army: Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. R.

groups — Italian, English, and German, as well as

French — among themselves and increasingly with indigenous Christians and the Byzantines as events unfolded. ; The Wrightsman Lectures by Otto Demus in 1966 (later published as Byzantine Art and the West in 1970) and a series of major symposia at Dumbarton Oaks dealing with comparable issues and material, most notably the

Hill, London,

345-346. Twelfth-century images of Crusaders with the cross on their garments are rare, but the extant frescoes and manuscripts depict equal-armed red crosses as the insignia: see, e.g., P. Deschamps, “Combats de cavalerie et épisodes des Croisades dans les peintures murales du XIle et du XIlIle siécle,” Miscellanea Guil-

1965 symposium on “The Byzantine Contribution to Western Art of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,”

focused on Byzantine influence on western Europe. A different, broader view was taken in some more recent

53.

meetings, most notably, “Il medio oriente e l’occidente nell’arte del XIII secolo,” a session chaired by Hans Belting at the XXIV International Congress of the History of Art in Bologna in 1979, and “The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades,” a symposium held conjointly at Western Michigan University and the University of Michigan in 1982. These works were published as H. Belting, ed., I] Medio Oriente e l'Occidente nell’arte del XIII secolo, Atti del XXIV Congresso Internazionale di Storia dell’Arte, vol. 2, Bologna, 1982, and V.P. Goss and C.V. Bornstein, eds., The Meeting of Two Worlds, Studies in Medieval Culture, XXI, Medieval Institute Publications, Kalamazoo, 1986. Taken together, these contributions have provided a far richer context for the study of Crusader art than was possible at the time that Enlart wrote or even when Boase began his work. X. Muratova, “Western Chronicles of the First Crusade as Sources for the History of Art in the Holy Land,”

laume de Jerphanion, OCP, vol. XII (1947), pp. 454-474.

Deschamps remarks on the important parallelism between the cross insignia of the Crusaders and the iconography of St. George, whose cult developed

widely in the twelfth century. See the comments of James Brundage, “An Errant Cru-

sader: Stephen of Blois,” Traditio, XVI (1960), p. 380, and see now the discussion of C. Tyerman. Information on these Crusaders was drawn from the following: H.E. Mayer, The Crusades, p. 38ff.; J. RileySmith, The Crusades: A Short History, New Haven and London, 1987, p. 18ff.; F. Duncalf, “The First Crusade: Clermont to Constantinople,” HC, vol. I, p. 251ff.; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1, London, 1965, p. 121ff.; and see also E.-G. Rey, Les Familles d'outre-mer de Du Cange, Paris, 1869, passim. For maps of the preaching of the First Crusade and the routes the First Crusaders took to Constantinople and the Holy Land, see J. Riley-Smith, The Atlas of the Crusades, London, 1990, pp. 28-31. See also our Map 1, p- 22. The most penetrating discussion of Godefroy de Bouillon and his family, including Baldwin of Boulogne, is found in H.E. Mayer, Mélanges sur l'histoire du Royaume

Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, BAR 152, Oxford, 1982, p. 57.

Chapter 2 1.

1962, Book 1, ch. 4, p. 7. See also J.A.

Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1969, pp. 118-120, and C. Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M.W. Baldwin and W. Goffart, Princeton, 1977, pp.

Latin de Jérusalem, Paris, 1984, pp. 10-48.

H.E. Mayer, The Crusades, trans. J. Gillingham, Oxford,

For the relevant art and architecture in this region during the late eleventh century to ca. 1100, see KJ.

2nd ed., 1988, pp. 9, 11.

William of Tyre, Book 1, ch. 16, A History, 1, pp- 94-95,

Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture:

Chronicon, LXIIL, pp. 137-138.

800-1200, 2nd ed., Baltimore, 1966; H.E. Kubach,

Please note that wherever possible I have consulted the original text in the best modern critical edition and a reliable translation when dealing with the written sources, both chronicles and pilgrims’ accounts. For major sources like William of Tyre and Fulcher of

Romanesque Architecture, New York, 1975; P. Lasko, Ars

Sacra: 800-1200, Baltimore, 1972, pp. 134-180; and the two volumes of Le Monde Romane: 1060-1220, by F. Avril, X. Barral i Altet, and D. Gaborit-Chopin: vol. 1, Le Temps des Croisades, Paris, 1982, and vol. 2, Les Royaumes d'Occident, Paris, 1983.

Chartres, among others, I have regularly cited both the Latin edition and the translation, but usually only

485

On Raymond and his chalice, see J.H. and L.L. Hill,

grimage. I look forward to the fort! oming new edi tion of the Codex Callixtinus for dis ussion of possibh,

Raymond IV: Count of Toulouse, Syracuse, 1962, p. 1.

Besides the legate’s cross, Adhemar appears to have carried a personal banner, the vexillum beatae Mariae, on which was depicted an image of Our Lady Mary, reflecting the cult of the Virgin at Le Puy. See J. Riley-

parallels. My thanks to Alison Stones

question. 14.

Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading,

Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 76, 103. Raymond of Aguilers, ch. 5, Historia Francorum, RHC:

Occ., Ill, p. 244, Le “Liber,” p. 52, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 34. Raymond of Aguilers, canon of Le Puy, is the most important eyewitness source on the First Crusade who writes about the visual experiences of the Crusaders. For his account I include references to the old RHC and new Latin editions and to the English translation. For a discussion of the term “Franks” as used in these

a5.

Jerusalem, 1982, pp. 41-63, and Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of the Crusade, pp. 182-200, a chapter on the “Vexillum Sancti Petri.” i.

12:

twelfth century mostly in the politics, commercial , and

artistic developments. See now M.L. Favreau-Lilie, Die

16.

Italiener im Heiligen Land, Amsterdam, 1989.

Raymond of Aguilers, ch. 4, Historia Francorum, RHC:

Oce., Ill, p. 240, Le “Liber,” p- 45, Histori a Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 28. See B. McGinn, “Iter

17.

18.

Sancti Sepulchri: The Piety of the First Crusad ers,” Essays on Medieval Civilization: The Walter Prescot t Webb Memorial Lectures, ed. B.K. Lackner and K.R. Philip, Austin and London, 1978, p. 51. William of Tyre, Book 3, chs. 19-23, A History, I, pp. 178-184. This church/mosque is a small buildin g with a squareended choir, a nave, and two aisles with cubic capitals on columns alternating with square piers supporting a wooden roof. As apparently the first Crusader church, it is distinguished by being the only one witha wooden roof. D. Pringle, “Church Buildin g in Palestine before the Crusades,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Cen-

tury, p. 18, nt. 48, T.S.R. Boase, “Ecclesiastical Art in the Crusader States in Palestine and Syr HC, IV, p. 74,

and C. Enlart, Les Monuments des Crois:, 19.

IIL, ch. 5, p. 494, passage translated in Fulcher of

13.

William of Tyre, Book 3, ch. 10, A Histor y, L, pp. 163-165. This mention is notable because it ives indi-

is increasingly clear that Italians played an important

Chartres, A History, trans. ER. Ryan, p. 79, nt. 1. The reference to engraving in brass and marbl e is striking because it shows that this writer was predisposed to be impressed by metalwork and sculpture instead of, e.g., the dazzling mosaics that must have been a notable part of the visual experience for anyone

who was able to enter and explore the city’s church es. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 13, A Histor y, p. 88, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 199-203. This is a striking passage, but one wonders if this is some kind of stan. dard topos in early twelfth-century texts about pil-

Constantinople to Antioch,” and “The First Crusade: Antioch to Ascalon,” HC, I, chs. IX and X, pp. 280-349. We have also referred constantly to H. Hage nmeyer “Chronologie de la Premiére Crois ade (1094-1109) ” ROL, 7 (1900), pp. 275-339, 430-503.

role in the Crusades and the Crusa der States of the

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 9, A History, p. 79, His-

toria Hierosolymitana, pp. 176-180. N.B. We have chosen to rely mainly on the major sources of the First Crusade written by eyewitnesses and participants, that is, Fulcher of Chartres, the anonymous writer of the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium (cf. nt. 12 below), and Raymond d’Aguilers, in contrast to those whose accounts were perhaps based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, but written much later. The reasons for this are rooted in the attempt to draw as directly as possible on Crusader experiences during the Crusade, not on what later authors thought those experiences were. This having been said, it must be noted that certain later sources have in fact also been used selectively when discuss ing individual issues on which they can shed light, most notably, William of Tyre, of course, and others, as cited later. Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium, RHC: Occ.,

} irst Cr

ade between the spring of 1097 and the ummer ofus109 9 the following: Mayer, The Crusades, Pp. 46-55; Riley. Smith, The Crusades, pp. 23-34; S. Rix wciman, A History

cation of a north Italian in the army, a region not otherwise specially referred to in the various contin gents, It

Aachen, Stuttgart, 1966, pp. 91-107. See also the discussion of the use of this term in the forthcoming new edition of the Pilgrim's Guide to Santiago da Compostella. On the role of St. Peter and the standard of St. Peter in

the First Crusade, see J. Riley-Smith, “The First Crusade and St. Peter,” Outremer, ed. B.Z. Kedar et al.,

pp- 378-380, Plate 152.

Fulcher Fulcher celestial siege of

{I, Paris, 1928,

of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 14, A History, p. 88-89. and Raymond of Aguilers report another event at the end of Decembe* ‘(197, while the Antioch was under way: Fuisher of Chartres,

Book 1, ch. 15, A History, p. 95, Historie Hizrosolymitana, pp. 215-224, Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francor um,

trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 36. Wha: appears to be a

meteor is reported to have fallen in the Turkish army

outside of Antioch on the night of June 13-14, 1098, but No special interpretation was given to it: Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum, p. 57, Gesta Francorum et

20.

aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, Book 9, ch. 26, p. 62. William of Tyre, Book 4, ch. 9, A History, I, p. 199.

William expended three chapters on the history, the site, and the political rule of the city at that time, but he

486

th;

tie

I, pp. 175-278; and S. Runciman, “Th¢ First Crusade:

early chroniclers see P. Knoch, Studien zu Albert von

10.

See, for the general hist ory of the

fOr raising

says virtually nothing about the monuments of the city.

Fulcher of Chartres, A History, Book 1, ch. 15, p. 92. R. Gardiner, “Crusader Turkey: The Fortifications of Edessa,” Fortress, 2 (1989), pp. 23-35, has a good introduction to this region under the Crusaders. Brundage, “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois,” pp.

387-389, attempts to explain Stephen’s decision to leave the Crusade at this point. Whatever Stephen’s reasons, it was a great loss to the Crusade and a loss to historians as well because Stephen was an informative

writer who often wrote unusually descriptive letters of personal experiences and reactions. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 20, Historia Hierosolymi-

tana, pp. 244-247, A History, p. 102. Our quotes are from the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, Book 9, ch. 24, pp. 57-58. See also Raymond of Aguilers, ch. 11, Historia Francorum, RHC: Occ., Ill, pp.

255-256.

The prominent role of St. Andrew is a striking feature of these visions, particularly where the finding of the lance in the Church of St. Peter is concerned. J. RileySmith has remarked on the extraordinary focus on

discussion on the lance found at Antioch, pp. 46-52, 60-62, 72; there are earlier comments on the lance by R de Fleury, Mémoire sur les Instruments de la Passion Paris, 1883, passim. Adhemar also may have wondered what the lance was doing in Antioch, although this is not discussed in the sources. The Holy Lance was not the only relic discovered by the Crusaders in Antioch. See J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, p. 94. But it was the most important relic dis-

covered there, and all of the others found in Antioch seem already to have been in reliquaries, whereas this one was located in the ground. Raymond of Aguilers, ch. 12, Historia Francorum, RHC: Occ., Ill, pp. 260-261. Ironically two other chroniclers, the author of the Gesta Francorum and William of Tyre, give to Adhemar of Le Puy, the chief opponent of the authenticity of the lance, the dubious honor of carrying the relic into battle for the army. Raymond and the anonymous author of the Gesta Romanorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum (Book 9, ch. 29, p. 68) were both eyewitnesses to this event, so it is difficult to decide who may have been carrying the relic. The ranking

ecclesiastical official, later usually the patriarch of

Eastern saints (“The First Crusade and St. Peter,” Out-

Jerusalem, who was otherwise unarmed, would nor-

remer, p. 52ff.), but St. Andrew is particularly provocative. Although it can be noted that his name in Greek means “manly” or “courageous,” qualities that were relevant to Crusader aspirations and circumstances, it is even more interesting to recall that St. Andrew was claimed as the apostolic patron of Constantinople. See F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, no. 4, Cambridge, Mass., 1958. Given Count Raymond’s cordial relations with the Byzantine emperor, St. Andrew’s appearance in the visions of Peter Bartholomew, however unexpected, seems in keeping with the Provencal point of view, as reported by Raymond of Aguilers. The main sources for the finding of the Lance are Raymond of Aguilers, chs. 10-11, Historia Francorum, RHC:

mally carry such a relic as a palladium or holy standard. In this case, however, Adhemar of Le Puy was commanding the army of Raymond of Toulouse who was ill and had stayed in Antioch to command the garrison in the city. Thus, when we read in the Gesta Francorum (Book 9, ch. 29, p. 68), “In quarta fuit Podiensis episcopus, portans secum lanceam Salvatoris cum sua gente, et cum exercitu Raimundi comitis Sancti Egidii,” the Bishop of Le Puy was carrying the lance, but Ray-

Occ., II, pp. 253-259, Le “Liber,” pp. 68-76, and Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, pp. 51-58; and the Gesta Francorum at aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, Book 9, chs. 25-29, pp. 59-68. It is also reported by Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 18, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 235-241, A History, pp. 99-101, and William of Tyre, Book 6, ch. 14, A History, I, pp. 280-282. See C. Morris, “Policy and Visions: The Case of the Holy Lance at

Jerusalem.

Antioch,” War and Government in the Middle Ages, Essays in Honour of J.O. Prestwich, ed. J. Gillingham and

].C. Holt, Bury St. Edmunds, 1984, pp. 33-45, and S. Runciman, “The Holy Lance Found at Antioch,” Analecta Bollandiana, 68 (1970), pp. 197-209. My thanks to Jonathan Riley-Smith for his comments on this issue.

F. de Mely, “La Croix des Premiers Croisés — La Sainte

Lance — La Sainte Couronne,” Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, vol. IIL, Paris, 1904, pp. 23-163, with special

mond of Aguilers tells us that he personally was carrying the holy relic (Le “Liber,” pp. 75-84)! A relic of the Holy Lance would also be carried in 1101 by the Crusaders marching eastward in Asia Minor. See J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, p. 130, nt. 57. However, by that time the True Cross had become the ensign of the army of the Latin Kingdom of

There can be no doubt that these standards were an important means of identifying the various contingents in the Crusader army. See Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, pp. 76-103. Incidents of their use are referred to at Tarsus, at the taking of the citadel of Antioch, and later at Bethlehem. Unfortunately we do not have any extant examples or reliable contemporary details about what they looked like, but an early fourteenth-century Parisian artist painted a stirring interpretation in miniatures for an abbreviated French version of William of Tyre’s History of Outremer, Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 352, fols. 47-49. On the tradition and use of the cross standard prior to the First Crusade, see Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, p. 35ff., and see pp. 182-200, on the question of whether the papal banner also bore a cross. In addition to the individual standards, if what we think

30.

Sib

(Book 10, ch. 36, p. 86). William of Tyre, COrroborates part of this saying: “15,000 pieces of gold besides gifts of horses . . . and also promised to restore all the Chris-

of as the Crusader red-cross standard appeared at this point, it must certainly have been carried with the papal legate, Adhemar. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 24, A History, p. 110, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 258-264.

tian captives whom he was holding in his power,” but he also adds, “mules, silks and precious vases” (“Wasi

Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, Book 9,

preciosis”) (Book 7, ch. 21, A History, {, Pp. 329-339

Chronicon, LXIII, p. 371). Money and horses were obviously important to Crusaders on the march; it remains to be seen why William of Tyre writing in the 1180s thought silks and precious vases were appropriate

ch. 29, p. 69. It is not surprising that a vision of this sort would contain soldier saints; what is unusual is that

the soldier saints were Eastern rather than more familiar saints from the West. See Riley-Smith, “The First

32.

333

34.

Crusade and St. Peter,” Outremer, pp. 55-56. On the Genoese in Antioch, see M.-L. Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im Heiligen Land, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 43-48. Nothing remains of the Genoese Church of St. Lawrence in Antioch from the Crusader period. Raymond of Aguilers, ch. 13, Historia Francorum, RHC: Occ., Ill, pp. 262-264, Le “Liber,” pp. 85-91, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, pp. 65-72. Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” p. 107, Historia Fran-

gifts in 1099, and indeed what exactly they might have

been. 37.

saders found at Antioch following their taking of the city in June 1098. He refers to churches used as stables, images of the saints destroyed or defaced by havin their eyes gouged out and their noses mutilated, not to

corum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 87. Raymond

explains that the Crusaders recognized and respected the standards of their compatriots and would not attack anyone flying such identification. As for the seals, it is unusual to have them mentioned specifically in such a context, although they were crucial for the authentication of documents. 35.

mention other indignities. None of the eyewitnesses to the First Crusade discusses this at Antioch, but William had greater perspective on the condition of the city in 1098 when he wrote in the 1180s (Book 6, ch.

23, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 339, A History, I, p. 296). 38.

Raymond of Aguilers, chs. 17-18, Historia Francorum,

RHC: Occ., Ill, pp. 279-291, Le “Liber,” pp. 112-135, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, pp. 83-114. Remarkably, Raymond reports visions in these passages that shift the focus from the relic of the lance to that of the True Cross and, besides giving new importance to the Virgin Mary, also introduce St. George as a major figure for Crusader veneration. On the golden image of Christ, see Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, RHC: Occ., Ill, p. 683, ch. CX, and the

Book 10, chapter 36, Gesta Francorum, p. 87. William of Tyre records that this church had been razed by the Moslems before the Crusaders arrived (Book 7, ch. 22,

39.

Reference to this curious story is made by J. RileySmith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, Philadelphia, 1986, p. 97, nt. 35. My thanks to Jonathan Riley-Smith for drawing my attention to it. The chroniclers differ on what gifts were given here and at other points along the way, most notably perhaps at Constantinople. Fulcher does not even men-

Chronicon, LXIII, p. 373, A History, 1, p. 332). The demolished church was probably a basilican-plan church with a nave and two aisles. William of Tyre said it was destroyed to keep the roof timbers out of the hands of the Crusaders. See D. Pringle, “Church Building in Palestine before the Crusades,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, p. 12, and Figures 1-11, p. 35.

40.

Book 7, ch. 24, A History, I, p. 336, Chronicon, LXTL, pp:

41.

376-377. On the siege of Jerusalem and the city as the Crusaders

Historia Peregrinorum, RHC: Occ., Il, p- 216, ch. CVII.

36.

Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” p. 129, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 109. it is interesting to point out that William of Tyre also refers to this kind of destruction, but in the context of what the Cru-

found it at the time, see J. Prawer, “The Jerusalem the

Crusaders Captured: A Contribution to the Medieval

Topography of the City,” Crusade and Settlement, ed. P. Edbury, Cardiff, 1985, pp. 1-16. See also the siege of Jerusalem in a three-part graphic

presentation, D.

Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, New York, 1990,

tion the encounter with the emir of Tripoli (Book 1, ch.

p- 93, and the schematic city view in Riiey-Smith, The Atlas of the Crusades, p. 30.

25, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 265-281, A History, p. 114). Raymond of Aguilers cites the “Rex Tripolis” as offering the Crusaders 15,000 gold pieces, plus horses,

The Montpellier map (Montpeliier, Ecole de Médecine, Ms. H 142, fol. 67v) of Jerusaiem was proba-

she-mules, and many garments (Raymond of Aguilers,

Le “Liber,” pp. 111-112, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 91). (It should be noted in passing that

bly done in the twelfth century. It pur;

to show the

holy city in 1099 with its main features

and the posi

tions of Godefroy de Bouillon and Raymond of St. Gilles outside the walls, but the information is con-

here Raymond makes a comparison between these gold pieces and the main Western coinage with which he was familiar, a passage to which we shall return when considering Crusader coinage in ch. 3.) The Gesta Francorum records the emir as releasing 300 Christian prisoners (from when he took Tripoli?) and giving the Crusaders 15,000 bezants and 15 horses

fused and mislocated. See Bahat, Atlas of Jerusalem, P.

92, and S. de Sandoli, Itinera Hierosolyiiana Crucesignatorum, vol. I, Jerusalem, 1978, pp. 190-191.

The plates referred to above are, of course, modern and include elements that did not exist in 1099, in pat-

ticular, the Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulcher,

488

which was not dedicated until 1149 and was not finished until probably well into the 1150s.

dwell on the lamps of gold and silver the Crusaders seized. See Ibn al-Athir, The Perfect History, Book 10,

Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” pp. 143-144, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, pp. 122-123.

chs. 193-195, in F. Gabrieli, ed., Arab Historians of the Crusades, trans. E.J. Costello, London, 1957, pp. 10-11 Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 27, A History, p. 122,

Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” pp. 145-146, Historia

51.

Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, pp. 123-124.

Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 292-303

Albert of Aachen, Liber Christianae Expeditionis, RHC: Occ., IV, p. 475, ch. XVI, reports the story about the

52.

image of Christ. It appears that this effigy differs from

he one made in Antioch, but both images provide evidence that the Crusaders carried holy images with them, and had some images made en route, along with reliquaries. See also the comments of J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade, p. 97. My thanks to Jonathan Riley-

Smith for pointing out this story to me. 44.

;

Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” pp. 149-150, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 127.

William of Tyre, Book 8, ch. 16, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 407, A History, I, p. 366. 46.

The French artist of an Old French translation of William of Tyre’s Historia, Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 2824, fol. 45r, depicts this event in a miniature ca. 1300 with the knight wearing the cross of St. George. St. George is otherwise associated with the Crusader cause on the Hague round map of Jerusalem, where he and St. Demetrius attack fleeing soldiers, in a panel at the bottom of the folio. Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” p. 150; Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 127.

48.

The site of this cross is marked on the important Cambrai map (Cambrai, Bibliothéque Municipale, Ms. 437, fol. 1r) of Jerusalem, ca. 1150, done in the West: see

Bahat, Atlas of Jerusalem, p. 102; S. de Sandoli, Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum, vol. Il, Jerusalem, 1980, pp. 306-307; and Ornamenta Ecclesiae, vol. Ill, pp. 73-74, no. H2, for the Cambrai map with bibliography. None of the so-called round maps of Jerusalem indicates the cross at the point of entry.

As is the case with the manuscripts of the pilgrimage accounts of this twelfth-century period, none of the codices with Jerusalem maps appears to have been done in the Crusader East. All of the maps were apparently executed in the West. For further information on these maps, see ch. 8A, nt. 100. William of Tyre, Book 8, ch. 18, Chronicon, LXIII, p. 409, A History, |, pp. 368-369.

R.L. Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in Their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine, Chicago, 1940, p. 93. Nicholson says that Tancred had heard of treasure in the Templum Domini during the siege and rushed there first to find it. Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, RHC:

Occ., Ill, chs. CXXIX,

CXXX, pp: 695-696,

the refers to the spoils taken by Tancred, including

image of “Mohammed.” We shall discuss this image in ch. 3. Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana, RHC:

Oce., IV, Book 6, chs. XIII, XXIII-XXV, pp. 473, 479-481, gives a more detailed description. Islamic sources

55.

Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H.

and L.L. Hill, pp. 127-128, Le “Liber,” pp. 150-151. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 29, A History, p. 123, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 304-306 J. Riley-Smith (The First Crusade, pp. 98-107) comments on the Crusaders’ sense of the providential and miraculous during the First Crusade, stressing the importance of visions and the coincidence of important events en route with special feast days. William of Tyre recounts an example of arms and shields used to mark possession. Referring to the massacre following the Crusader entry to Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, he says in Book 8, ch. 20, the following: “Unde urbem perlustrantes diligentius et stragi civium protervius instantes, urbis diverticula, secessus quoque et secretiora civium effringebant penetralia, clipeos vel quodlibet armorum genus in introitu defigentes, ut esset signum accedentibus ne gressum ibi figerent, sed loca preterirent quasi iam ab aliis occupata” (William of Tyre, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 413). It is interesting that William apparently specifies “shields and arms.” E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey (William of Tyre, A History, vol. 1, p. 372, nt. 1) comment that “This is an early instance of the use of coats of arms as a means of identification and the establishment of claims.” What the phrase, “clipeos vel quodlibet armorum genus” literally means and the idea that this refers to coats of arms is, of course, debatable. It is uncertain whether the Crusaders would have used coats of arms in 1099 as compared to when William wrote this text in 1184, because the contemporary sources mainly refer to banners for such identifications. However, this is a significant reference to a type of artistic work that would become very important, and the painter involved was probably not limited to the painting of shields with the heraldic arms of nobles. We recall that much later, in the fifteenth century, the great painter Jan van Eyck painted heraldic devices for the Duke of Burgundy. Among scholars of heraldry, the theory that Euro-

pean heraldry originated with the Crusaders based on Saracen practice has been discredited (M. Pastoureaux,

Traité d’Héraldique, Paris, 1979, p. 27, and M. Prinet,

“De l’origine orientale des armoiries européenes,” Archives Héraldiques Suisses/Schweizer Archiv fiir Heraldik, 26 (1912), pp. 53-58), but the textual references of William of Tyre and others, as well as the chronological parallelism in the development of heraldry with the Crusade movement must still be explained. G. d’Haucourt and G. Durivault (Le Blason, Paris, 1965, p. 16) report that Anna Comnena (Alexiad, Book 10(?), pp. 186-236) saw the First Crusaders at

Die

ee

a

about the significance of the title, but whatever else it

Constantinople in 1096 and remarked on their shields,

but writing some forty years after the event, she did not record whether they were painted or not. They also cite Robert (Albert?) of Aix as referring to painted and decorated shields. These references must be verified and evaluated.

may mean, it seems to indicate that Godes roy de Boul.

lon and his electors were thinking in terms of defend. ing the Holy Sepulcher rather than establishing c

major state, that is, a kingdom. On the coronation of the rulers of the Latin Kingdom, see H.E. Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus und die Krénung der lateinischen KGnige von Jerusalem,” DOP, 24 (1967), pp.

Chapter 3 1.

150-151.

On the date of Arnulf’s election, see Gesta F rancorum et

The main primary sources used for this chapter are cited in the following notes. We have relied on the following secondary works for the history of the Crusader States from 1099 to 1100: H. Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie de la premiére croisade,” ROL, vol. 8

aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, Book 10, ch. 39, p. 93.

On the election of Arnulf, see B. Hamilton, The Latin

Church in the Crusader States, London, 1980, pp. 12-14,

On the relic of the True Cross found in August 1099 in Jerusalem, see A. Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, Paris, 1961, pp. 286-287, no. 258.

(1900-1901), pp. 318-382; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. I, Cambridge, 1951, p. 289ff., J. Richard,

The sources differ on the description of the relic, but

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, trans. J. Shirley, vol. I, Amsterdam/Oxford/New

UC hl hh

the version given by Fulcher of Chartres is important because it corresponds generally to later extant versions of reliquaries of the True Cross. See Fulcher of

York, 1979, p. 19ff.; J.

Prawer, Histoire du Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, 2nd ed., vol. I, Paris, 1975, p. 241ff.; J. Prawer, The Latin Kingdom

Chartres, Book 1, ch. 30, A History, p. 125, Historia

of Jerusalem, London, 1972, p. 15ff.; H.E. Mayer, The Crusades, trans. J. Gillingham, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1988, p. 58ff.; J. Riley-Smith, The Crusades, New Haven and

Hierosolymitana, pp. 306-310. William of Tyre only says the relic was found in a “silver case”: William of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 4, A History, I, p. 385. H. Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” ROL, 7 (1900), p. 489; Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana, Book 6, ch.

London, 1987, p. 40ff.; H. Fink, “The Foundation of the

Latin States, 1099-1118,” HC, I, p. 368ff. John of Wiirzburg, ch. 13, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 264. Two ancillary legates had been named, Arnulf and Alexander, chaplain of Stephen of Blois, who had gone home just before the fall of Antioch. See J. Richard, “Quelque textes sur les premiers temps de |’Eglise latin de Jerusalem,” Mémoires et documents publiés par la

41, RHC: Occ., IV, p. 491. Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” p. 156; Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and LL.

Hill, p. 133. J. Riley-Smith, “The Latin Clergy and the Settlement

in Palestine and Syria, 1098-1100,” CHR, 74 (1988), p. 544, identifies Gerard, abbot of Schaffhausen in

Société de l’Ecole de Chartes, 12, Recueil de Travaux offerts a M. Clovis Brunel, vol. 2, Paris, 1955, pp. 420-430.

Raymond of Aguilers, Le “Liber,” p. 152, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, pp. 129-130. The attempt to name a patriarch before the secular ruler has been taken to indicate the intention among the

Switzerland, who became the first prior of the Holy Sepulcher and who carried the True Cross into battle

on numerous occasions after 1101 (see nt. 12 for the references in the sources). 10.

clergy to establish ecclesiastical control of the state. Although possibly true, the failure of this attempt seems to show how disorganized the situation actually was. The disinterest in becoming king in Jerusalem voiced by the nominees, while couched in pious terms deferential to Jesus in the holy city, may also be partly due to the prevailing uncertainty of how to proceed and the need to attract support of the clergy for the responsibilities that lay ahead. The story took shape that Godefroy refused to wear the crown in the city where Jesus was crowned with thorns and suffered his passion. It is reported by Jean d'Tbelin in the Assises de Jerusalem, RHC: Lois, I, p. 22. On the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri, see J. RileySmith, “The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 52 (1979), p. 83ff., and the

11.

Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, Book 10, ch. 39, p. 97. On the booty described by Fulcher of Chartres, see Book 1, ch. 10, A History, p. 127. Rodulfi Glabri, Historiarum Libri Quinque, ed. and trans., J. France, Oxford, 1989, Book 4. vi. 18-20 and

Book 4. ix. 26, p. 199ff.

a23

Fulcher of Chartres states that after the victory at Ascalon, Robert of Normandy and Robers of Flanders cieparting for went to Jericho and the Jordan before

home by way of Constantinople. Meanwhile Raymond

of Toulouse took his wife to Lattakieh before also set-

ting out for Constantinople, but he intended to return to Syria at least. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 32, A History, p. 128, Historia Hierosolymitana, Estimates of armies and such are not: cult to control, but H. Fink, based on

proposes that there were approximately fighting men left in and around Jerusalem

after August 1099, a larger number in and around Antioch, and “a small band at Edessa.” See “The Foundation of the

more recent article of J. France, “The Election and Title

of Godfrey de Bouillon,” Canadian Journal of History, 17 (1983), pp. 321-329. There has been much discussion

Latin States,” HC, I, p. 369, 375. It should be kept in

mind, however, that the indigenous Christian popula-

490

tions of Antioch and Edessa, consisting of Jacobites, Nestorians, Armenians, Syrians, and Greek Orthodox, were larger than in Jerusalem at this time and were friendly to the Franks against the Turks. The pilgrim Saewulf, who visited the Holy Land ca. 1101, wrote that, in general, the devastation the Crusaders found was great. Referring to Bethlehem, he commented, “nothing habitable is left there by the Saracens, but it is all ruined, exactly as it is in all the other places outside the walls of Jerusalem” (Saewulf, ch. 22, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 108). The Church of the

Maria im Tal Josaphat,” Bistiimer, Kléster und Stifte im K@nigreich Jerusalem, Schriften der MGH,

21.

“First Guide,” ch. 7, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 89.

“Qualiter,” paragraph 9, ibid., p. 91. The famous star marking the spot of the birth of Christ in the grotto apparently did not exist. The Crusaders would have a

star made later on. “Ottobonian Guide,” paragraph 6, ibid., p. 93. 24.

See “First Guide,”

“Qualiter,” and “Ottobonian

Guide,” Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 87-93. On the site in

Nativity still stood, however, as we have seen. These sites were obviously important, but they were

the early twelfth century, see Pringle,

also directly accessible in the meager territory the Crusaders controlled: Ramla-Lydda was on the main road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, and the Jericho/Jordan site

Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 340-341, William of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 15, A History, I, p. 403, Chronicon, LXIIl, p.

CCK], 1, p. 109.

Fulcher of Chartres, A History, Book 1, ch. 34, p. 134,

441. Just how little an impact these ruins had on

was only thirty miles east from the holy city. The spot marking Christ’s baptism was attractive for other reasons as well, a pleasant climate — especially in the winter—and a place to bathe in the Jordan River. On the pilgrimage site of the Baptism on the west bank of the

Fulcher himself is indicated by how he confused Baalbek and Palmyra. Unfortunately no descriptive com-

ments are recorded about Baalbek by either Fulcher or William of Tyre. 26.

Jordan, see, Pringle, CCKJ, I, pp. 108-109.

16.

26, Stuttgart,

1977, p. 258ff.

Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,” HC, I, pp. 376-377. William of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 13, A History, I, p. 399, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 438. William of Tyre also comments in this same passage that many of these gifts were lost to the frauds and intrigues of the princes who ruled these churches after Tancred. On the history of Galilee as part of the Latin Kingdom, see M. Rheinheimer, Das Kreuzfahrerfiirstentum Galilaa, Frankfurt am Main, 1990. Among the early chroniclers, apparently only Ekkehard, Abbot of Aura, who came to the Holy Land with German Crusaders in 1101, refers to the work of Godefroy of Bouillon instead of Tancred. Ekkehard’s loyalties were obviously different from those of William of Tyre, and his arrival in Palestine so soon after the death of Godefroy clearly put him in receipt of numerous stories of Godefroy’s deeds. It is notable that none of the earliest pilgrims’ guides (1099-1105) pays much attention to these sites. It is

27.

only Abbot Daniel, whose account must date from ca.

1108, who first describes these holy places in any detail for Crusader travelers. We shall have occasion to discuss Abbot Daniel's account in ch. 4. J. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and

Runciman, A History, |, p. 299ff.; Fink, “The Founda-

tion of the Latin States,” HC, I, p. 377ff. On the biography of Daimbert, see L. Carratori and B. Hamilton, “Daiberto,” Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 31, Rome, 1985, pp. 679-684, with current bibliography. Hamilton, The Latin Church, pp. 18ff., 53ff., and RileySmith, “The Latin Clergy and the Settlement,” CHR, 74 (1988), pp. 554-557. The investiture of the new patriarch of Jerusalem raised many questions about the nature of the church establishment and the state in the Crusader East. We do not propose to explore these issues here, but a recent article discusses some of the ecclesiastical questions: Y. Katzir, “The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Primate of the Latin Kingdom,” Crusade and Settlement, ed. P. Edbury, Cardiff, 1985, pp. 169-175. We know nothing about the ceremony by which Daimbert was invested as patriarch, but presumably it took place in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. William of Tyre reports: “As soon as Daimbert, the man of God, had been installed in the patriarchal chair, both Duke Godfrey and Prince Bohemond humbly received from his hand, the former the investiture of the kingdom, and the latter that of the principality, thus showing honor to Him whose viceregent on earth they believed

the patriarch to be” (William of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 15, A History, 1, p. 403, Chronicon, LXIII, p. 440). For Bohemond this meant fealty to a Western source of power and released him from the shadow of the Byzantine

Cyprus: 1050-1310, London, 1967, p. 39.

On Crusader Jaffa, see, Pringle, CCK], I, pp. 264-273.

emperor. Curiously, however, it meant his recognition

Hamilton, The Latin Church, p. 14. These canons appar-

ently lived in private quarters in the city.

392. William of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 9, A History, I, p.

Although the chapel of the tomb of the Virgin Mary

was completely destroyed at this time, it would be one

of the first rebuilding projects in the early twelfth century. See H.F. Delaborde, Chartes de Terre Sainte provenant de labbaye de N.-D. de Josaphat, BEFAR, 19,

30.

I, p. Paris, 1880, p. 2, Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, vol.

813ff., and H.E. Mayer, “Zur Geschichte des Klosters S. 491

of a patriarch more powerful than the head of the more venerable see of Antioch. For Godefroy, homage to the patriarch was followed with benefactions to support the church. William of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 16, A History, 1, p. 404, Chronicon, LXIII, p. 441. See also H. Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” ROL, 8 (1900-1901), pp. 318, 320-321. William of Tyre, Book 9, chs. 16-18, A History, 1, pp. 403-408, Chronicon, LXIIL, pp. 441-445.

Inscriptionum Crucesignatorum Terrae Sanctae, Jerusalem

icon, LXII, ppWilliam of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 18, Chron

31.

on of 1974, pp. 55-56. John Wilkinson provides discussi is quoted

444-445, A History, |, pp. 407-408: ws: the outer “This quarter is described as follo extends from h whic wall boundary is formed by the the corner past d, Davi of gate the the west gate, or Tancred as far as tower which is known as the tower of the name of the first the north gate, which is called by is formed by the dary martyr Stephen. The inner boun of Stephen gate the from public street which runs rs, and ange y-ch mone the of s table straight to the boundthese in thence again back to the west gate. With s pasLord’ the of s aries are contained the sacred place and tal, Hospi the of e hous sion and resurrection, the holy of other the and s monk of two monasteries, one n as the monaswomen. Both these cloisters are know arch and the teries of the Latins. The house of the patri e with their lchr Sepu cloister of the canons of the Holy s.” limit its n appurtenances also lie withi (1900-1901), p. H. Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” ROL, 8 a2 by earlier 327. Reports of some of the first relics taken 1100, June In r. Crusaders returning home now appea with y ster mona his nts Aimery, abbot of Anchin, prese by n give been had he h whic ge, the arm of St. Geor oonol “Chr yer, enme (Hag ders Flan of rt Count Robe As with the gie,” ROL, 8 (1900-1901), pp- 336-337). ing about noth told are lance and the True Cross, we d. aine cont was relic this h the reliquary in whic ders Other relics taken home by returning Crusa of 1101. ition exped the for men t recrui to used were sources. Mentions of these relics are widespread in the

the confusing text from which this epitaph Pilgrimage, pp. and the English translation, in Jerusalem 12-16, 210-211. and A different epitaph is recorded by later pilgrims may be the result of restorations made

damaged

terram: aqvisiuit: cultvi de Bullon qui totam istam: cum xpo amen.” Later xpiano: evi anima: regnet

n, authors who studied the tombs cite the inscriptio but salem Jeru s of ruler because the tombs of the Latin

were destroyed as a result of the fire in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1808, all citations after that date

seem to be dependent on Quaresmius: e.g., A-G.C.P. de m: Hody, Godefroid de Bouillon et les rois latins de Jérusale

Etude historique sur leurs tombeaux jadis existant dans l'église de la Resurrection, précédée de considérations sur la premiére Croisade, ainsi que sur Pierre l’Hermite, Arnould de Rohes et les chevaliers du Saint-Sépulchre, 2nd ed.,

Paris and Tournai, 1859, pl. II opposite p. 246. De Hody as considers this text definitive, based on Quaresmius,

he states on pp. 394-401. See also G. Angelini, Le tombe dei re latini a Gerusalemme, Perugia, 1902; F. Dunkel, “Die Adamskapelle und die Graber der lateinischen pp. Kénige Jerusalems,” Das Heilige Land, 50 (1906),

m, IL, p. 56-68, esp. pp- 65-66; Vincent and Abel, Jérusale Vin51ff. p. ionum, Inscript Corpus Sandoli, de 280; and

cent and Abel make the interesting observation that the later inscription, cited above, parallels that found on the tomb slab of Philippe d’Aubigny of 1236. They do not, however, know why the inscription would have changed. If, as we propose, the tomb was damat the aged and restored later, the slab of Philippe availbeen have would er entrance to the Holy Sepulch new a ing provid for model able as a convenient e Philipp For tomb. oy’s Godefr on inscription InscripCorpus d’Aubigny’s tomb, see de Sandoli,

cinensis, MGH: SS, vol. X, pp. 88-89; Narratio Acqui , Robert David RHC: Occ., vol. V, pp. 248-251; and C.W. -Smith, Riley J. See 227. p. Curthose, Cambridge, 1920, ia, delph Phila ing, Crusad of Idea the The First Crusade and HC, 1100,” of de Crusa “The Cate, J.L. and 1986, p. 123, vol. I, p. 349, and nt. 10.

ed., Runciman, A History, I, p. 313. Cf. R. Rohricht, CI), MCCX VII(MXC itant Regesta Regni Hierosolym

t-Ganneau, tionum, pp. 64-65, no. 74, and C. Clermon

no. 31. Innsbruck, 1904, rpt. New York, 1960, p. 4,

34.

Bo:

Tutor of “The Tomb of Philippe d’Aubigne, Master and and the Jersey of r Governo , England of Henry III, King

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 36, Historia Hierosolymi-

ch. 23; tana, pp. 349-351, William of Tyre, Book 9,

ciie in Palestine Channel Islands,” Archaeological Resear 1899, vol. 1, pp. n, during the Years 1873-1874, Londo

Chronicon, LXII, pp. 449-451. ch. Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana, Book 7, “Sed. says: Caen of Raoul 521. p. IV, Occ., 21, RHC: interim sepulto ante Golgota” (Gesta Tancredi, RHC: Occ., III, p. 706). William of Tyre says: “Sepultus est vero in ecclesia Dominici Sepulchri sub loco Calvarie”

106-112. 37.

(Book 9, ch. 23, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 450).

36.

in 1244,

vol. Il, p. 365) cites Quaresmius (Historica Theologica, Godefridus the following text: “Hic iacet: inclitus: dux. :

oux, Chronica, Some examples are Sigebert of Gembl Zwifaltense, icon Chron b, Ortlie 395; p. MGH: SS, vol. VI,

33.

by the Khwarizmian

to the tomb

Turks

This Latin text and its punctuation are derived from the following sources: M. de Vogiié, Les Eglises de la

di Gierusalemme, G. Zuallardo, II devotissimo Viaggio

Plans of the Rome, 1587, p. 203. See also B. Amicc f. Bellorini trans Sacred Edifices of the Holy Land (1609), and E. 04; 102-1 and E. Hoade, Jerusalem, 1953, pp. um Veter it! ertor Monum et um Locor Horn, Ichnographiae Terrae Sanctae, Rome, 1902, pp. 50-53,

i

17 graphiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae (1724ed., trans. E. Hoade and B. Bagatti, Jerusa

Rorgo Terre Sainte, Paris, 1860, p. 433, and PC. Boeren,

Fretellus de Nazareth et sa Description de la Terre Sainte: Histoire et Edition du Texte, Amsterdam/Oxford/New

70-75, Figure 8. Dunkel, “Die Adamsk adds a reproduction of the view of Antoniu explicitly from his pilgrimage of 1673, which also shows the tomb of Godefroy to the right.

York, 1980, p. 44. There is also a version in the Gesta

Francorum Therusalem expugnantium, RHC: Occ., Ul, p. 542; and S. de Sandoli gives a longer version: Corpus

492

Note that all of these representations depict the

41.

tomb as it appeared later inside the Crusader church

42.

Hom, Ichnographiae Monumentorum, p. 72 Horn, ibid., represents a cross on the pedimental end

é dicated in 1149. When it was put up, however, it was

of the canopy. He also shows featherlike designs on the

940s and the triporticus on its east side.

on the top of the slab beneath the cover.

in the context of the rebuilt Byzantine church of the

yuaresmius, Historica Theologica, I, p. 365, and Horn, op. 71-72, indicate that Godefroy’s tomb is to the right £ the entrance to the chapel, that is, on the south side; Zuallardo, in his 1587 text and the illustration, p. 203,

top of the canopy roof and a plaque-shaped element 43.

Compare the tomb type with those in S. Lorenzo fuori le mura in Rome from the early twelfth century: | Herklotz, “Mittelalterliche

Baldachingraber

in 5

Lorenzo fuori le mura, Rom,” ZfiirK, 43 (1980), pp

says that it is on the right side as one enters the chapel,

11-20, discusses these and others in medieval Italy. See

but in the French translation of his work published in Antwerp, 1608, the position is reversed to the left side in the illustration. Amico, pp. 102-104, does not indi-

also I. Herklotz, “Sepulcra” e Monumenta

evo: Studi sull‘arte sepolcrale in Italia, 2nd ed., Rome, 1990. Enlart relates the Crusader examples to French,

cate which of the tombs at the entrance is that of Godefroy, and which is that of Baldwin I. See on this, de

tioning in passing that such tombs are also commonly

Spanish, and Portuguese parallels, while only men-

found in Italy: C. Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, vol

Hody, Godefroid de Bouillon et les rois latins de Jerusalem,

I, pp. 165-167, and the example illustrated from Maze-

pp. 281-368, esp. pp. 307-311.

rolles (Vienne), Plate 38, no. 125. See also H. s‘Jacob, Idealism and Realism, p. 98 (tomb of Pierre de Sainte Fontaine: +1110).

E. Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture, New York, 1964, pp.

53-54, and H. s Jacob, Idealism and Realism: A Study of

Sepulchral Symbolism, Leiden, 1954, pp. 98-99. For late medieval versions, see the illustrations in the books of hours for the Office of the Dead, for example, the catafalque in the Rohan Hours (M. Meiss and M. Thomas, The Rohan Master: A Book of Hours, New York,

del Medio-

em Z. Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V, King of Jerusal

45.

1973, Plate 69).

(1185-1186) and the Workshop of the Temple Area,” Gesta, 18 (1979), pp. 3-14. See our discussion in ch. 10 HE. Mayer, “Die Pontifikale von Tyrus und die Kro21 nung der lateinischen K6nige von Jerusalem,” DOP,

(1967), p. 184.

The most reliable illustrations, from Zuallardo and Amico, represent this monument as a stone canopied tomb, but at least one woodcut published in Viaggio da

a, ch. Ekkehard of Aura, Libellus qui dicitur Hierosolymit

in XX, RHC: Occ., V, pp. 27: “Ante montem Calvariae, , laeum mauso ejus extat vestibulo Golgotanae ecclesiae, lapide Pario constructum.”

Venetia al santo sepolcro ed al monte Sinai, Venice, 1598,

shows it as a table tomb. See de Hody, Godefroid de Bouillon et les rois latins de Jerusalem, p. 260 and Plate IV. Although this table tomb type is frequently found in twelfth-century reliquaries as well as in medieval

47.

latins de See de Hody, Godefroid de Bouillon et les rots Jérusalem,

pp.-

364-365;

and

Dunkel,

“Die

Adamskapelle,” pp. 64-65.

Le Roi est For St. Denis, see A. Erlande-Brandenburg, et les ures sépult les Mort: étude sur les funérailles, siécle, Xllle du fin la jusqu’a tombeaux des rois de France

Routes de tombs (see, for example, M.-M. Gauthier, Les

la Foi, Freiburg, 1983, pp. 86-87), in this case the canopied tomb is no doubt more accurately reprewith sented by the two observers cited, given the care descripdetailed the and detail their drawings indicate tion their reports include. oid de As to the material of the tomb, de Hody, Godefr udes concl 369ff., p. lem, Bouillon et les rois latins de Jerusa stone, was it that s source s after reviewing the variou

is possible that it either limestone or marble (p. 381). It

reused marwas marble but would have possibly been

49.

ne the Crusaders ble in that case; it is hard to imagi

stances. It is quarrying new marble in these circum limestone was more likely that the local marblelike more readily much used, which also would have been available. supports; only Zuallardo and Amico indicate four 72, represents PHorn, Ichnographiae Monumentorum, side with the the on the tomb with five supports, three rendering Horn’s side. other the inscription, two on though and ion, looks later in terms of its ornamentat ts, suppor five show he may have been accurate to one ps perha and with start to there were probably four duly Horn which ty, stabili onal additi added later for

of King Geneva, 1975, pp. 78-79. The canopied tomb same type Dagobert in St. Denis was apparently the hen und tomb. See P.E. Schramm, Herrschaftszeic art, Stuttg I, 13, Bd. MGH, der en Schrift Staatssymbolik, in Palermo, tombs n Norma the For 5. nt. 340, p. 1954, of the Norman see J. Deer, The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs idge, Mass., Cambr f, Gillhof G.A. trans. Period in Sicily, 53. nt. and 35, p. 1959, erliche BalSee the comments of Herklotz, “Mittelalt In nt. 25, he 17-18. pp, (1980) 43 , dachingraber,” ZfiirK this tomb of g datin the of ation sider recon a calls for standunder are rns and that of Baldwin II. His conce tomb r eithe that ely unlik y able, but it seems highl later much very time a at ted execu been would have of ility possib The than the demise of the king involved. must, 1244, after , tombs the later reconstruction of ew of this however, be considered within the purvi issue.

LXIIL, p. 423, William of Tyre, Book 9, ch. 2, Chronicon, a church he ed enter once he “when 382: A History, |, p. celebrathe after could not be induced to leave, even nued conti He uded. concl tion of the divine office was

represents.

493

of such to question the priests and others cognizant

e matters as to the meaning of each image and pictur nt, differe were ts interes until his companions, whose for were excessively bored.” The words used here the unlike icons, t sugges not do re” “pictu “image” and ts. accoun ms’ pilgri later in used ulary vocab Although William includes a certain number of stories about Godefroy that are quite traditional about

55.

Plate 2, nos. 16-33; Poitou, Plate 2, no. 34; Chartres, Plate 2, nos. 35-36; and Le Mans, Plate 2, no. 37.

56.

rulers, however fantastic, such as the famous episode

See the comments of Stahl, “The Circulation of Euro-

pean Coinage,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, pp. 92ff,

and Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 2-7. Metcalf

of Godefroy demonstrating his prowess by cutting off the head of a camel with one mighty blow of his sword, this story is more matter-of-fact, and even though unusual for William and rather more wordy

also mentions coins from two other European loca-

appeared in finds in the Near East but are not mentioned by Raymond d’Aguilers. The Lyon coinage is especially

tions, Lyon and Guingamp, which have

and anecdotal than we expect from him, it seems to

notable, but not relevant for the Crusader States until

ring true as part of Godefroy’s reputation at the time William was writing. It will be interesting to consider how this attribute of interest in religious pictures is also characteristic of later kings, especially Baldwin IV, in William’s thinking, as a characteristic of piety seemly in a Crusader ruler. sil; Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 103 and 127-129, respectively. For the mosaics of the Holy Sepulcher, see the fundamental study by M. Bulst, “Die Mosaiken der ‘Auferstehungskirche’ in Jerusalem und die Bauten der ‘Franken’ im 12. Jahrhundert,” FS, 13 (1979), pp. 442-471. Only one figural fragment of the mosaic program in the Holy Sepulcher survives, the Christ in glory of the Ascension located in the southeastern vault of the Calvary chapel. This mosaic is strongly Byzantine in style but appears to have been put up well after the early earthquakes of 1106 and 1114, about the time of the dedication of the church in 1149. It is the only extant example in the Holy Sepulcher of the kind of image Godefroy was interested in studying. We shall discuss it more fully in ch. 7. 52. The sword and spurs said to be those of Godefroy de

57.

the period ca. 1150. Besides the chapter in HC, VI, by Porteous cited above, nts. 54 and 55, in which he discusses the Edessene

coinage, he has also published a more detailed article: J. Porteous, “The Early Coinage of the Counts of Edessa,” NChr, 7th ser., 15 (1975), pp. 169-182. I have relied on these works of Porteous and the discussion of

Metcalf in his book, cited above, for my comments on the early coins of Edessa. On Crusader Edessa see now

also R. Gardiner, “Crusader Turkey: The Fortifications of Edessa,” Fortress, 2 (1989), pp. 23-35.

58.

59.

P. Grierson, Byzantine Coinage, London, 1982, pp.

35-36, for comments on Byzantine cross types. Porteous, “The Early Coinage,” NChr, 15 (1975), pp. 170-172, 176-178, Plate 14, nos. 2, 5; Porteous, “Cru-

sader Coinage,” HC, VI, pp. 362-364, Plate 1. Porteous, “The Early Coinage,” NChr, 15 (1975), p. 170 and nt. 4. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, chs. 9-10, Historia Hierosolimitana, pp. 179, 188-189.

Bouillon, illustrated here from the Matson Archive

(Plate 3.2), are also reproduced in A. Salzmann, Jerusalem: Etude de reproduction photographique des Monuments de la Ville Sainte, plate vol. II, Paris, 1856, second

plate (plates are not numbered). This sword and these spurs have been used at least since the nineteenth century in the ceremony of initiation for the Knights of the

65.

Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” HC, V1, pp. 368-369. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 9-21; Schlumberger, Numismatique de l'Orient Latin, pp. 6, 84-85. See A.M. Stahl, “The Circulation of European Coinage,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, pp. 85-90, and J. Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 382-391. Stahl, “The Circulation of European Coinage,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, pp. 86-97, points out the selec-

tivity, noting the importance of the Italian and French

Holy Sepulcher, as with Chateaubriand and others (W.

53.

1986, pp. 85-102, and D.M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Cry. sades and the Latin East, London, 1983, p. 2ff Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” HC, VI, p. 359. Metcalf Coinage of the Crusades, offers plates with reproductions of most of these coins: Lucca, Plate 1, nos. 7~15; Valence

coins, but notes the absence of coinage

Zander, Israel and the Holy Places of Christendom, New York, 1971, p. 49). G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Orient Latin, Paris, 1943, passim, and H.E. Mayer, Das Siegelwesen in den Kreuzfahrerstaaten, Munich, 1978, passim. Raymond of Aguilers, ch. XVI, Historia Francorum, RHC: Occ.., Il, p. 278, Le “Liber,” pp. 111-112, Historia Francorum, trans. J.H. and L.L. Hill, p. 91. This passage is commented on at length by J. Porteous, “Crusade

regions, and the lack of any English and

66. 67.

from certain

German coins.

Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,” HC, |, p. 380.

Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” ROL, 8 (1900-1901), PP: 353-354.

68.

Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,” HC, I, pp:

380-381.

Coinage with Greek or Latin Inscriptions,” HC, VI, p.

69. 70.

355ff., A.M. Stahl, “The Circulation of European Coinage in the Crusader States,” The Meeting of Two

7ale

Mayer, The Crusades, p. 62. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 1, A History, P- 137, Historia Hierosolimitana, pp. 352-354.

Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” 372-373.

Worlds, ed. V.P. Goss and C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo,

494

ROL,

8 (1901), PP:

72.

Ibid., p. 380.

73.

Gillingham, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1988,

s Sources for the History of Art in the Holy Land,”

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem London, 1972, pp 94-103. P. Edbury and J.G. Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian the Latin East, Cambridge, 1988, p. 67. Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus,” pp. 158-164, and Prawer The

Hill, “The Christian View of the Muslims at the

ime of the First Crusade,” The Eastern Mediterranean ids in the Period of the Crusades, ed. P.M. Holt,

Varminster, 1977, pp. 5-6, who discusses this curious

Latin Kingdom

See Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus,”

Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus,” pp. 173-174 and Figure 2; G. Schlumberger,

obverse surrounded with an inscription that names the king but, in the case of the Baldwins, does not designate which one he is and, on the reverse, gives the famous architectural formula for Jerusalem, a gate in a city wall with the Templum Domini on the left, the Tower of David in the center, and the Dome of the

Holy Sepulcher on the right. H. Mayer, Das Siegelwesen

in den Kreuzfahrerstaaten, Munich, 1978, p. 39, Plate 2,

On the issue of idols in the Middle Ages, see M.

no. 15, reproduces an actual seal impression of Bald-

Camille, cited in nts. 77 and 78.

win IV that is comparable to those in Schlumberger.

D. Pringle, CCK], I, pp. 161-165, and idem, “Magna

One notes, however, that the royal costume changes with Amaury I and Baldwin IV, from nonspecified Western robes to Byzantine-type royal garments. We shall discuss this below. The multipoint crown with simple pointed flourishes above the circlet or versions of the fleurs-de-lys was one type of crown used by the German emperor and other rulers in the West. It later became more elaborate, with a larger number of fleurs-de-lys,

(al-Bira): the Archaeology of a Frankish

New Town in Palestine,” Crusade and Settlement, ed.

P.W. Edbury, Cardiff, 1985, pp. 147-168.

Chapter4

William of Tyre, Book 10, ch. 9, A History, |, ppby 427-428, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 463. The date cited to ng accordi 1100, 25, er William translates to Decemb

examsometimes a cross, and many jewels. Few early

e ples of such crowns exist, but one damaged exampl See 1160). (d. Sweden of Erich King is the crown of

our calendar, with the new year beginning on January

King1. On the coronation of the rulers of the Latin

, PE. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik 88, Plate 1956, t, Schriften der MGH, Bd. 13, Ill, Stuttgar Figure 114a-b. There is no evidence for a throne used by the Crued sader kings in Jerusalem except for the seals indicat

von Tyrus und dom, see H.E. Mayer, “Das Pontifikale

em,” die Krénung der lateinischen K6nige von Jerusal

logy of the DOP, 21 (1967), pp. 151-152. For the chrono I, see H. n Baldwi early part of the reign of King

e du Royaume Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie de histoir 118),” ROL, (1101-1 I in Baudou de Régne de Jérusalem:

(1911), (1905-1908), pp. 145ff., 453ff., and 12

ably above. Whatever throne was used, it was presum of the time the until that palace royal the in located on Templars was located in the Templum Salomonis . al-Aqsa e Mosqu the is that g the Haram, the buildin

Crusader States, LonHamilton, The Latin Church in the . J.

, Sepulcher, judging from the seals. See Schlumberger

, 11 9 (1902), pp. 384-465, 10 (1903-1904), pp. 372-405 pp- 68ff.,

2.

seals seals BaldThey

are all the same type, with the enthroned king on the

Muslims themselves” (p. 90).

1.

Sigillographie de I’Orient

Latin, Paris, 1943, pp. 1-3, Plate XVI, 1. All of the that Schlumberger reproduces are drawings of now lost. He includes three other seals from later wins, and one from the reign of King Amaury.

points out that correct information about the heathen Moslems did not prevent educated writers from characterizing them as idolaters (p. 88) and that “proximity to the Muslims evidently did not guarantee an accurate perception of their beliefs; the writer’s preexisting notions and possibly his exposure to Oriental Christian views about Islam must have been more decisive factors than the opportunity for direct contacts with the

Mahumeria

pp. 171-182;

Saladin took Jerusalem in 1187

B.Z. Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches toward the Muslims, Princeton, 1984, pp. 85-96, discusses “Perceptions in the Age of Reconquest.” He

81.

the cere-

and Runciman, “The Crown of Jerusalem,” pp. 5-9, when suggests that the crown was presumably lost

Camille, The Gothic Idol, p. 146ff., discusses other accounts of “idols of Muhammed” in Western sources.

80.

discuss

had become quite complex. However, it is not clear how much of the core ceremony was initiated in 1100 of Jerusalem,” PEQ, 92 See S. Runciman, “The Crown (1960), pp. 8-9.

pp. 142-146.

79,

p. 94ff.,

150-154; J. Prawer

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 26, A History, p. 118.

[bid., pp. 51-57. The notion of an image of Mohammed

8.

of Jerusalem,

pp

mony that by the second half of the twelfth century

as an idol, as conveyed by these historical accounts, is discussed further by M. Camille, The Gothic Idol: Ideology and Image-making in Medieval Art, Cambridge, 1989, “I

Tyrus,”

episode as well.

, Ibid., Book 1, ch. 28, p. 122. Muratova, “Western Chronicles,” pp. 49-50.

75,

idem

“Das Pontifikale von

usader Art in the Twelfth Century, pp. 47-69. See also

74.

pp. 62-63;

X. Muratova, “Western Chronicles of the First Crusade

283-326, [publication incomplete]. this location: B. The following authors comment on

The royal throne apparently differed little from the patriarchal throne located in the Church of the Holy

des, trans don, 1980, p. 59; H.E. Mayer, The Crusa

495

* stood on the east side and it is unclear whether the

views of the Sigillographie, Plates I, 7; and XX, 4. Later

devastations of Caliph al-Hakim in 1009 or the rebuilg-

cher patriarchal throne in the Church of the Holy Sepul MonuLes , Enlart Cf. object. der Crusa posta represent

ing of Constantine IX Monomachos

in the 1040s had

left this area in ruins or covered with houses and shops

ments des Croisés, L, Paris, 1925, p. 164.

fronting on the market street that ran along the east

G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin,

side. The important recent article on the eleventh-cen-

Paris, 1884, pp. 417-423.

tury Byzantine rebuilding of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is by Robert Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the

The seals of the German rulers in the eleventh (and

twelfth) century depict a seated frontal male figure with four-point crown, orb with cross and scepter. Although there are certain differences of details, some important, the basic type is comparable to the Cru-

Temple: Constantine Monomachus arid the Holy Sep13.

sader royal seals. See PE. Schramm, Die deutschen

ulcher,” JSAH, XLVIII (1989), pp. 66-78. Daniel, ch. 47, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 143. Pringle, CCK], I, pp. 137-156; L.-H. Vincent and E-M. Abel, Bethléem. Le Sanctuaire de la Nativité, Paris, 1914,

Kaiser und Kénige in Bildern ihrer Zeit: 751-1190,

Munich, 1983, catalogue nos. 147 (Henry II), p. 397;

169 (Henry IV), p. 419; 181 (Henry V), p. 435; 192 and

15.

193 (Lothaire III), p. 447. The Crusader seated rulers

show slight variations in the crowns they wear; we shall discuss these variants as they emerge. Their scepters are uniformly topped with crosses and often are quite long, reaching the ground, whereas the German rulers have birds or fleurs-de-lys, only rarely crosses on their scepters, and they are mostly short

16. 17.

passim; B. Bagatti, Gli Antichi Edifici Sacri di Betlemme, Jerusalem, 1952, pp. 9-54. Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus,” p. 151 and nt. 46 points out that this title is found in the earliest extant royal document from Baldwin’s reign. Prawer mentions this. See nt. 9, above. Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,” HC, I, pp. 380-387. On the twelfth-century Crusader remains in these cities, now mostly in ruins, see Pringle, CCK], I,

pp. 59-61, 166-183.

scepters.

For an index of the seals of the French kings at the

On the sacro catino, see William of Tyre, Book 10, ch.

Archives Nationales in Paris, see Louis Douet d’Arcq,

16, A History, I, p. 437, Chronicon, LXIII, p. 471, and C. Marcenato, I] Museo del Tesoro della cattedrale a Genova,

Paris, 1863, rpt. Kraus-Thomson, Munich, 1980, pp.

Milan, 1969, tav. I, with description and bibliography.

Collection de sceaux, Inventaires et Documents, vol. I,

xxxviii-xl, 270-271, nos. 33-39. Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre, pp. 66-67. J. Prawer,

18.

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, London, 1972, pp.

97-102. For the major study of the sources and their interpretation, see H.E. Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von

Tyrus,” p. 141ff. For a description of the ceremonies from later in the twelfth century, see J. Prawer, The Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem, p. 94ff. J. Prawer, Histoire du Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, I, 2nd

19.

ed., Paris, 1975, pp. 264-265. Christmas Day was a favored day for western European coronations dating from the time of Charlemagne. See Mayer, The Crusades, pp. 62-63; Richard, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. A, Amsterdam, 1979, pp.

For the Crusade of 1101 see J.L. Cates, “The Crusade of 1101,” HC, I, p. 343ff.; J. Riley-Smith, The Crusades, New

Haven and London, 1987, pp. 34-39; H.E. Mayer, The Crusades, pp. 63-65. Increasingly J. Riley-Smith sees the Crusading expeditions in this early period as waves of soldiers who marched eastward more or less continuously in the wake of the First Crusade to the aid of the Holy Land. See P. Riant, “Le Martyre de Thiemo de Salzburg,” Revue des questions historiques, 39 (1906), pp. 218-237, for this version, Passio Thiemonis archiepiscopi, MGH:SS,

vol. XXI, p. 462. Both Mayer, The Crusades, p. 65, and Cates, “The Crusade of 1101,” HC, I, p. 362, mention this story.

60-63; H. Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,

20.

1099-1118,” HC, I, pp. 380-382; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. I, Cambridge, 1951, pp. 325-326; J.

Otto of Freising, Chronicon, ed. A. ! tofmeister, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, Hanover, 1913, Book VIL,

vii, pp. 316-317. Otto of Freising was critical of this legmartyrdom from end separating the fact of Thiemo’s ‘¢, as he was of ’ surrounded that Islam the fiction about

Hansen, Das Problem eines Kirchenstaates in Jerusalem,

Luxemburg, 1928, pp. 83-85; and Hamilton, The Latin Church, p. 59. See, for example, the earliest pilgrims of the Crusader period who describe the Holy Sepulcher at length:

Abbot Daniel (1106-1108) is much less clear about this.

legends about the Christian church otherwise. See Otto of Freising, The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146 A.D., trans. ard intro. by C.C. Mierow, New York, 1928, pp. 23-72, 411-412. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 21, A History, p- 173, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 453-454. The sources for

See Saewulf, chs. 10-12, and Daniel, chs. 9-13,

the battles of First and Second Ramla anc near Jaffa are

Saewulf (1101-1103) is quite explicit about the court24.

yard and what is inside and outside the rotunda.

however, on the general condition of the church build-

ie,” ROL, 10 referred to in Hagenmeyer, “Chrono! (1903-1904), p. 378, 11 (1905-1908), pp. : 6-180. Various chroniclers had cited the significance of the

ings or on the state of the buildings on the east and north side of the courtyard. Constantine’s basilica had

La Relique de la Vraie Croix, p. 288, no. 3.

Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 101-103, and pp. 127-130, respectively. None of these early pilgrims comments,

relic in the Crusader victory at First Ra mia: see Frolow,

496

for Pope Paschal’s gift, see Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, p. 306, no. 286. On Baldwin I’s gift to

37.

Stephen of Blois, see H.E. Mayer. “Die Hofkapelle der Konig von Jerusalem.” Deutsches Archiv fur Erforschung

‘es Mittelalters, 44 (1988), p. 494. Mayer argues (pp.

ellee by 189-509) the : king’s relics were keptP in thee H; Hofkapell his chaplain, along with the treasury, altar vessels, and royal garments.

Viayer, The Crusades, pp. 65-66; Fink, “The Foundation »f the Latin States,” pp. 388-390. Hamilton, The Latin Church, pp. 20-30. 26.

We can only make the indirect parallel between the

presence of Bernard of Valence in Antioch and the exiscence of the silver angel/eagle coins of Valence as one

39.

»f the most popular types in circulation among those See D.M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East, London, 1983, pp. 3-5. It should be noted also

N “I

28.

tually decided was a Danishmend coin of the twelfth century.

E. Rey, Etude sur les Monuments de ‘architecture militaire des Croisés en Syrie et dans l'ile de Chypre, Paris, 1871 41.

was struck. More recent scholars who have made similar comments on this image are R.L. Nicholson, Tan-

cred, Chicago, 1940, pp. 5, 7-8, with extended discussion; T.S.R. Boase, Kingdoms and Strongholds of the Crusaders, London,

och,” NC, 89 (1981), pp. 234-235.

Italia, Paris, 1912, Plate XL, no. 876 (standing).

Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” pp. 365, 389, Plate 2, no. 8; G. Schlumberger, Numismatique de I'Orient Latin, Paris, 1878, rpt. Graz, 1954, Plate I, no. 7. Porteous, “The Early Coinage of the Counts of

31.

Edessa,” pp. 172-173, Plate 16. P. Grierson, Byzantine Coins, London, 1982, Plate 60,

45.

nos. 1031, 1032. Patriarchal crosses are not unknown as

reverse designs on Byzantine coins, but they are rare:

see ibid., Plate 57, no. 991.

R. Ruckert, “Zur Form der byzantinischen Reliquiare,”

Miinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst,” 3. folge, bd. VIII (1975), p. 20ff. See, for example, Figure 10, the

33. 34. 35. 36.

most clearly be seen on the head of St. George in the icon. In comparison to this standard shape for a cap of hair, the form on the head of Tancred could not possi-

Mayer, The Crusades, p. 67.

Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” pp. 366-369; and MetGrierson, Byzantine Coins, pp- 220-221. The favored

Byzantine choices among the saints were St. Michael,

St. Demetrius, St. George, and St. Theodore.

S. Bendall, “The Mint of Trebizond under Alexius I and the Gabrades,” NChr, 7th ser., 17 (1977), pp. 132, 135, Plate 6, no. 10. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 7-8, Plate 3, no. 44; Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” p. 367, Plate 3, no. 17. The basic facial and head type of St. Theodore can be seen in the sixth-century Sinai icon of the Virgin and Child with Sts. Theodore and George (K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons, vol. I, pp. 18-21, no. B.3). A later example from possibly the ninth century is an enameled medallion now in Tiflis (K. Wessel, Byzantine Enamels from the Fifth to the Thirteenth Century, trans. 1.R. Gibbons, Recklinghausen, 1967, pp. 52-53, Plate 9b).

The peculiar shape of the cap of hair can perhaps

famous tenth-century reliquary of the True Cross from Limburg an der Lahn. Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,” HC, L, p. 392ff. calf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 7-8.

1971, p. 59; R-C. Smail, Crusading

Warfare: 1097-1193, Cambridge, 1956, p. 41, nts. 1-3. R. Pesant, “The Effigy on the Coins of Tancred of Anti-

or G. Sambon, Repertorio generale delle monete coniate in

30.

H. Prutz, Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzziige, Berlin, 1883, pp. 371-372. There has also been a great deal of speculation on why a coin with such an “oriental” image

Fribourg, 1976, p. 106, no. 166 (armed soldier mounted);

29.

of seal from the time of Theodosius III, patriarch of Antioch in the 1050s. See G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals ed. J. Nesbitt, vol. Il, text, Bern, 1984, p. 66; vol. IJ plates, Bern, 1985, no. 57e (sic) for 57d The typical iconography of St. Peter in Byzantine icons is found already in the pre-iconoclastic period see K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons, vol. 1, From the Sixth to the Tenth Century, Princeton, 1976, no. B.5. Peter here carries the cross and the keys. Schlumberger, Numismatique, Plate Il, no. 7 Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 45. This passage is fol-

lowed by a long discussion arguing how the Crusaders took on local costume when they settled in the East He also (pp. 44, 493) refers to a coin with a Greek title that he interprets as the “Grand Emir,” which he thought might refer to a Crusader prince, but he even-

coins taken to the Crusader East by the First Crusade.

that the short cross surrounded by an inscription on the reverse of these Valence coins would eventually supersede other cross configurations of Byzantine inspiration on Crusader billon deniers later in the twelfth century. Porteous, “The Early Coinage of the Counts of Edessa,” NChr, 7th ser., 15 (1975), pp. 170-173; Porteous, “Crusader Coinage with Latin or Greek Inscriptions,” HC, VI, pp. 364-365; and Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 8-9. Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” p. 364; Porteous, “The Early Coinage of the Counts of Edessa,” pp. 172-173, 177. For illustrations of the copper follaro of Roger I of Sicily, see P. Grierson, The Coins of Medieval Europe, London, 1991, p. 79, fig. 165; idem, Monnaies du Moyen Age,

Although also uncommon on Byzantine seals, the image of St. Peter as seen here does appear on one type

47.

bly be a “turban.” Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, Plate 3, nos. 45-47. Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” p. 367, Plate IIL, no.18. BI. Marschak, “Zur Toreutik der Kreuzfahrer,” MetalIkunst von der Spiitantike bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter, ed. A. Effenberger, Berlin, 1982, pp. 166-184; and idem,

62.

Silberschitze des Orients: Metallkunst des 3.-13. Jahrhun-

derts und ihre Kontinuitat, Leipzig, 1986, pp. 112-120.

De Diversis Artibus, ed. C.R. Dodwell, London, 1961, p.

For the Aachen casket, see “Anastasiusreliquiar,” in Ornamenta Ecclesiae, ed. A. Legner, vol. III, Cologne,

4. In referring to the artistic skills of various peoples ’ Theophilus reports the following: “Quam si diligentius perscruteris, illic inuenies quic-

1985, pp. 88-90, and W.B.R. Saunders, “The Aachen Reliquary of Eustathius Maleinus, 969-970,” DOP, 36 (1982), pp. 211-219. For the L.A. County Museum

quid in diversorum colorum generibus et mixturis

habet Graecia, quicquid in electrorum Operositate sey

bowl, see P. Pal, ed., The Nasli M. Heeramaneck Collection, Los Angeles County Museum, 1973, p. 158, no.

49.

nigelli varietate nouit Ruscia, quicquid ductili ve] fusili seu interrasili opere distinguit Arabia, guicquid in vasorum diversitate seu gemmarum ossiumue sculptura auro decorat Italia, quicquid in fenestrarum pretiosa varietate diligit Francia, quicquid in auri, argenti, cupri et ferri lignorum lapidumque subtilitate sollers laudat Germania.”

286. For the Vatican reliquary, see W.F. Volbach, II tesoro della Capella Sancta Sanctorum, Citta del Vaticano, 1941, p- 17, Figure 12; C. Cecchelli, “Il tesoro del Laterano,” vol. 2: “Oreficerio, argente, smalti,” Dedalo, 7

50. 51.

52.

(1926/27), fasc. 4, pp. 240-241; and H. Grisar, Die rémische Kapelle Santa Sanctorum und ihr Schatz, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908, pp. 110-111, no. 5, Figure 54.

The earliest document recording the existence of Mons Peregrinus is a grant of Raymond’s dated January 16,

See above, nt. 37.

(MXCVII-MCCXC)), vol. I, Innsbruck, 1893, rpt. New

Deschamps, Les Chateaux, IIL, La Défense, pp. 293-295,

1103; see R. R6hricht, Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani

On the mausoleum of Bohemond at Canosa di Puglia, see A. Epstein, “The Date and Significance of the Cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy,” DOP, 37 (1983), pp. 85-88; Pina Belli D’Elia, “Acceptus,” in La Puglia fra Bisanzio e l’Occidente, Milan, 1980, pp. 175-177; and E. Bertaux, L’Art dans I'Italie Méridionale, Rome and Paris, 1903, p. 313, Figure 121. Bertaux describes it as “une combinaison d’un turbeh musulman et d’une chapelle funéraire occidentale.” William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 18, A History, 1, p. 493, Chronicon, LXIUI, p. 523; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. II, Cambridge, 1952, pp. 125-126; Boase,

York, n.d., p. 6, no. 38. This act would indicate that the castle was built in 1102. For comments on the dating, see also J.H. and L.L. Hill, Raymond IV, Count of

Toulouse, Syracuse, 1962, pp. 154-155. See also the

important study of H. Salamé-Sarkis, Contribution 4

l'histoire de Tripoli et de sa région a l’époque des Croisades, Bibliothéque archéologique et historique, vol. CVI,

Paris, 1980, pp. 6ff., 55ff.

Deschamps, Les Chateaux, III, La Défense, p. 185; G. Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem, Documents

“The Arts in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” JWCI, 2

sion of existing buildings, in this case, transforming a mosque into a church, was apparently an important Crusader approach to their needs in the early years of

P. Deschamps, Les Chateaux des Croisés en Terre Sainte, III, La Défense du Comté de Tripoli et de la Principauté

the Crusader States. This example is one of the earliest

d’Antioche, Paris, 1973, texte, pp. 217-247. Ibid., pp. 259-285. 55.

documented cases, but unfortunately we cannot relate

the text to an extant structure. The phenomenon was of course reversed later on so that some Crusader churches are preserved today mainly because of their use as mosques after the Crusaders left the Holy Land in 1291. The church at Ramla is an important example, among others: see M. Benveniste, The Crusaders in the

On Anavarza, see R.W. Edwards, The Fortifications of

Armenian Cilicia, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 65-72, esp. 68-70. Although there was reconstruction after the early Crusader period, one sees very early at Anavarza characteristic features of twelfth-century Frankish castle architecture: marginally drafted masonry, squareheaded embrasures with wide arrow slits, very slightly pointed groin vaults, sculptured voussoirs, and rectangular as opposed to the typical Armenian round tow-

Holy Land, Jerusalem, 1970, pp. 170-172

65.

R. Hiestand, “St.-Ruf d’Avignon, Raymond de Saint-

Gilles et l’Eglise Latine du Comté de Tripoli,” Annales du Midi, 98 (1986), pp. 329-331. Hiestand points to the

ers. Ibid., pp. 287-292. Ibid., pp. 323-326. Ibid., pp. 249-258.

seminal article of J. Richard for this study:

“Le Char-

Halphen, Paris, 1951, pp. 605-612.

P. Deschamps, Les Chateaux, I, Le Crac des Chevaliers,

Paris, 1934, passim.

67.

Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,” HC, I, pp.

61.

relatifs a l’histoire des

Croisades, XV, Paris, 1984, p- 186, no. 79. The conver-

(1938-1939), p. 3. 53:

It is striking to compare this passage with a passage in the contemporary (ca. 1110-1140) text of Theophil us

392-401. We shall discuss these major fortified sites below, at the point where their extant structure emerges in the historical discussion. Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, ch. 77, RHC: Occ., IIL, p661.

Fink, “The Foundation of the Latin States,” p. 396. On the castle of Jubail see T.S.R. Boase, “Military Architecture in the Crusader States in Palestine and Syria,” HC, IV, pp. 144-145; Deschamps, Les Chateaux, Ill, La Défense, Paris, 1973, texte and album, ppPp-

203-215; W. Miiller-Wiener, Burgen der Kreuzritter,

Munich/Berlin, 1966, pp. 65-66; R.C. Smail, Crusading Warfare: 1097-1193, Cambridge, 1956, pp. 226-228; TH

498

TO

LL

Lawrence, Crusader Castles, London, 1936, rpt. ed., Lonn, 1986, p. 53ff., esp. p. 73; TE. Lawrence, Chisader Castles, ed. D. Pringle, Oxford, 1988, pp. XXX, XXXVIII:

the Crusader County of Tripoli, c. 1102-1268,”

75.

Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, I, Paris, 1925 34,

, 38, 39, 69, II, Paris, 1928, pp. 116, 117, 319, and

silitaire des Croisés, pp. 217-219, Plate XXI.

ch. 48; RHC: Occ., IV, p- 539; Frolow, La Relique

j 1077

no. 285; Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” ROL,

‘n Byzantine fortifications, see C. Foss and D. Win76.

i986, pp. 15-37; Lawrence, Crusader Castles, ed. D. Pringle, pp. XXXV, XXXVIII; and for the older N. African examples, D. Pringle, The Defense of Byzantine

q

plates on p. 547ff.

It is also worth noting that rectangular towered walls protecting city gates are found in Islamic architecture, most notably in Cairo at the Bab an-Nasr in the

developments in the Latin Kingdom. In general RileySmith and Prawer tend to take a less positive view than Hamilton. Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” ROL, 11 (1905-1908), pp. 479-480; and J. Riley-Smith, “The Latin Clergy and the

Settlement in Palestine and Syria, 1098-1100,” CHR, 74 (1988), p. 551. Riley-Smith, The Crusades, p. 56. H.E. Mayer, “The Concordat of Nablus,” Journal of

1080s, before the Crusaders arrived. In this case the architects were said to be Armenian Christians from

Urfa, which would again suggest ultimately Byzantine origins for their ideas in fortifications. See K.A.C.

33 8

Creswell, “Fortification in Islam before A.D. 1250,”

Proceedings of the British Academy, 38 (1952), p. 112ff. D. Pringle, The Red Tower, pp. 15-22. On early castles, see Pringle, “Crusader Castles: The First Generation,”

Ecclesiastical History, 33 (1982), p. 538f.

G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de I'Orient Latin, Paris, 1943, p. 73ff. H.E. Mayer, “Die Griindung der Bistiimer Askalon und Bethlehem,” Bistiimer, Kléster und Stifte im Konigreich Jerusalem, Schriften der MGH, 26, Stuttgart, 1977, p.

Fortress, 1 (1989), pp. 14-25.

Hill and Hill, Raymond IV, p. 157, proposed his date of death as February 28, 1105, and suggested that he was buried in his castle based on the text of Albert of Aachen, Book 9, ch. 32, Historia Hierosolymitana, RHC: Oce., IV, p. 610. On the tomb of Raymond of Toulouse at Mons Peregrinus, see for the old interpretation: Deschamps, Les Chateaux, Il, La Défense, pp. 367-371.

82.

But see now H. Salamé-Sarkis, Contribution a l'histoire

de Tripoli et de sa région a l’époque des Croisades, Paris, 1980, pp. 57-94, esp. 63ff., and carte 7, plans 1, 6-14, Plates 7-13. Salamé-Sarkis presents significant archeological evidence, a rereading of the Western historians, and new consideration of important contemporary Arab historians. On the church of St. Gilles in Jerusalem, see de Vogiié,

Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, pp. 303, 439; and J. Folda, HC, IV, p. 273. On the rose window in the sabil, see A. Fabre, “La Sculpture provencale en Palestine au XIle

siecle,” Echos d’Orient, 21 (1922), p. 50; Enlart, Les Mon-

uments des Croisés, IL, p. 206. i See J. Richard, Le Comté de Tripoli sous la Dynastie Toulousaine: 1102-1187, Paris, 1945, p. 44ff.; Runciman,

44ff.; and Hamilton, The Latin Church, p. 59. Hamilton, The Latin Church, pp. 60-61. See below, nt. 103. The Crusaders apparently built this chapel with the vaulting in the form of pointed arch groin vaults, and a dome. Coiiasnon says, “the crypt had been arranged in the first half of the twelfth century, before the cloister, and Ummayad capitals were reused in it” (The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, p. 61). If the Crusaders were responsible for this chapel, it was they who reused the four massive Islamic capitals at the crossing below the dome. See J. Wilkinson, Column Capitals in Al-Haram Al-Sharif, Jerusalem, 1987, pp. 27-28, and for comparable basket capitals found today on the Haram, see pp. 197-202, nos. 139-144. Questions have been raised about when the Chapel of St. Helena was in fact first constructed, in the time of Constantine, or in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The current view is that it could not be Constantinian; for example, C. Coiiasnon stated that the Constantinian basilica probably did not have a crypt, but “the existing crypt of St. Helena was constructed in the

twelfth century, and only the lateral walls [part of the foundations of the Constantinian basilica] are earlier”

A History of the Crusades, I, p. 56ff.; Mayer, The Crusades,

(Coiiasnon, p. 41). V.C. Corbo, II Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, no. 29, vol. I, Jerusalem, 1982, pp. 208-209, says the chapel of St. Helena “e una costruzione com-

pp. 67-69.

74,

See Hamilton, The Latin Church, pp. 53-64; Riley-Smith, The Crusades, pp. 47-56; and Prawer, The Latin Kingdom

tional Series, 99, 2 vols., Oxford, 1981, pp- 131-166, and

73.

Pp 305

9 (1902),

of Jerusalem, p. 159ff., for discussion of ecclesiastical

Africa from Justinian to Arab Conquest, BAR Interna-

72.

that

pp. 413-414.

field, Byzantine Fortifications: An Introduction, Pretoria,

71.

the charges

Was removed from office at this point, he was accused of mishandling a relic of the True Cross. It is in episodes of this kind that we see the importance and potency of the True Cross as a force in Crusader affairs See Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana, Book 7

). Pringle, The Red Tower, London, 1986, pp. 15-18 and passim, with comments on differences between Westerm tower keeps and those found in the Latin King-

70.

NChr

King Baldwin brought against Daimbert for which he

plates; E. Rey, Etude sur les Monuments de l'architecture

69.

ser. 7, 20 (1980), pp. 76-77, nos. 14 It is significant to note that among

On the billon deniers of Count Bertrand, see Porteous, “Crusader Coinage”, HC, VI, p. 371, Plate VIII, no. 65; and C.J. Sabine, “The Billon and Copper Coinage of 499

able that the Augustinian rule that was to have such an important role to play in the clerical organization of

pletamente crociata”; see also, III, tav. 1. It is still

unclear, however, whether the chapel was originally part of the Byzantine reconstruction in the 1040s or wholly a twelfth-century project. Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple,” p. 71, points out that the grotto of the cross existed in the eleventh century, but that the Chapel of St. Helena was built in the twelfth. Our position is that whereas the chapel as seen today is wholly the product of Crusader work, the Byzantines may have first constructed it in the rebuilding of the Holy Sepulcher in the mid-eleventh century. If, however, the Crusaders did in fact first build this chapel, as seems possible, it was likely, then, that the basket capitals were reused here. The controversial passage in the De situ urbis Jerusalem that apparently refers to this chapel as a “great church” (“De Situ,” Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 178) must date to

major holy sites in the Latin Kingdom derived from St.

Ruf via Tripoli and Raymond of St. Gilles. See R. Hiestand, “St.-Ruf d’Avignon, Raymond de Saint- Gilles et l’Eglise Latine du Comté du Tripoli,” Annales dy Midi,

88. 89.

case it seems to refer to the spiritual renewal of the church, and neither the legal nor the business nor the

possible construction aspect seems relevant. From the context of the passage it appears to refer to an initiative made by the king for the patriarch to provide renewal of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher through the installation of regular Austin canons. The relevant

about this time, that is, ca. 1109-1114. See our discus-

result of this decision would have been the specific need to house the canons under their new rule in the

precinct of the church. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, II, p. 273, note the passage with “renovatione” but do not discuss the various possible meanings. I am indebted to Drs. Giles Constable and Petrus Tax for discussing the meaning of this passage with me. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, IL, p. 268. The now fragmentary inscription reads: “[Ar]nulfus patriarcha

sources. See A. Schénfelder, “Die Prozessionen der

Lateiner in Jerusalem zur Zeit der Kreuzziige,” Historisches Jahrbuch, 32 (1911), esp. pp. 578-590; see also Prawer, The Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem, pp. 177-181. William of Tyre follows Arnulf from the time of the First Crusade at Antioch and denigrates him almost continually. See Book 7, ch. 18, Book 8, ch. 11, Book 9, ch. 1, Book 10, ch. 2, and Book 11, ch. 15, Chronicon, LXIIL, pp. 366, 400, 421-422, 454-455, and 519, respec-

domu[m] qui condidit istam.” See also S. de Sandoli,

Corpus Inscriptionum Crucesignatorum Terrae Sanctae,

tively. 86.

87.

“Renovatione” or “renovatio” is, of course, a highly charged word in the Middle Ages that could carry a

variety of meanings depending on its context. In this

sion of this problematic text in ch. 7. We know of the rituals and celebrations from later

85.

98 (1986), pp. 327-336, esp. 330ff. Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire, p. 75.

William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 15, A History, p. 489,

Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 519. Peter Fergusson discusses the issue of choosing canons or monks in its twelfth-century setting relative to the Holy Land, in “The Refectory at Easby Abbey: Form and Iconography,” AB, LXXI (1989), pp. 340-342. G. Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire, pp. 74-77, no. 20 (E. de Roziére, Cartulaire de l’Eglise du Saint Sépulcre de

91.

Jerusalem, 1974, p. 67, no. 78. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, II, pp. 272-275, Figures

OZ:

127-133, Plate XIII. A.W. Clapham, “The Latin Monastic Buildings of the Church of the Holy Selpulchre, Jerusalem,” The Anti-

93. 94.

Jérusalem, Paris, 1849, no. 25); pp. 85-86, no. 25 (de

quaries Journal, vol. I (1921), pp. 1-18, and Plate 1. Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, 2, pp. 173-180. V. Corbo, Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme, Jerusalem, 1982, 3 vols.: vol. I, pp. 207-209; vol. II, Plates 6 and 34;

and vol. III, no photos of the east end of the church or

Roziére, Cartulaire, no. 42). The wording of these documents is interesting in two regards: first, Gibelin appeals to the king, Baldwin, to install these canons, seeing in him the continuity and responsibility of arranging for the new patriarch; second, although the tule is referred to in the 1114 document as “pro regula beati Augustini,” Gibelin in 1112 is referring to the cus-

the area immediately adjoining. It is clear that the important archeological studies carried out by the

Franciscans were restricted by the jurisdictional status quo of the Christian communities. The areas of the canons’ buildings, which now belong to the Ethiopians and the Copts, were not open to investigation. n

Cotiasnon, The Church of the Holy Sepuichre, Jerusalem,

toms of churches of Lyons and Reims. In both cases, of

pp. 61-2, places the canons’ cloister unaccountably into the second half of the twelfth century A. Borg, “The Crusader Church of th: Holy Sepul-

course, the connection is to the West, but in the case of Gibelin, the specific ties to Lyons and Reims are yet another set of references to particular French sources,

iven at the chre, Jerusalem,” unpublished lecture Courtauld Institute, London, 1977, does not comment

in this case of church discipline. The Augustinian rule was spreading over western Europe as part of papal reform of the clergy in the eleventh century. In southern France, however, its main center was at St. Ruf near Avignon, a church we shall have other occasions to mention in regard to the Holy Sepulcher. See C. Brooke, The Monastic World: 1000-1300, London, 1974, pp. 125-134. It is not improb-

on the date of the canons’ cloister. D. Pringle, “Some Approaches to the Study of Cru-

sader Masonry Marks in Palestine,” Levant, 13 (1981), pp. 183-184, refers to Arnulf’s installation of the

canons in conventual buildings in 1114, the same year there was a serious earthquake in Palestine. He suggests, therefore, that whatever work had been done on

500

he east end of the Crusad er church may have been

church, the cathedral of Notre-Dame-des-Doms, Avignon, also had its cloister directly to the east of the ; church.” Careful inspection of the plan published by

jamaged and had to have been rebuilt later. His refer-

eyice to the east end relates to the masons’ marks recorded there by Clermont-Ganneau in 1873-1874

chaeological Researches in Palestine, vol. 1, London

Clapham as Plate I of “The Latin Monastic Buildings”

299, pp. 1-38). The important thing from our point ne

view

will show that he deviates in numerous details from

is that these masons’ marks are not dated and

the plans of Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, I, p- 271, and

hus may come from the 1130s-1140s as well as 1114 Pringle in this article leaves open the date for the

Plate XII. Clapham is presumably to be trusted overall because of the special access he had to the site and the greater detail he is able to give to the complexities of the site.

commencement of work on the Crusader church, but

he still assumes that work was under way prior to ca. 1130, presumably partly also based on the dubious text reference of Eugesippus-Fretellus (for which, see ch. 7 of this book). In a later article he is more specific: Pringle, “The planning of some pilgrimage churches in

TS.R. Boase, Castles and Churches of the Crusading King-

dom, Oxford, 1967, p. 9. For other examples of the bentangle column/capital see Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, vol. I, pp. 73, 118-125. For the earlier pilgrims, see J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pil-

Crusader Palestine,” World Archaeology, 18 (1987), p-

343, says, “one of the first pilgrimage churches to be

grims before the Crusades, Warminster, 1977, passim.

rebuilt was the Holy Sepulcher itself, where work began on the new choir around 1114, though it was not

100.

“Ottobonian Guide”(1101-1103), the “Gesta Francorum

to be consecrated until 15 July 1149.” Although I agree

Guide"(1109), and “De Situ”(1114), in Jerusalem Pilgrim-

that the area in the complex where construction began

was to the east of the triporticus, where the apse of the

101.

Crusader church eventually would be built, for the

reasons discussed above, I believe the 1114 date refers to the canons’ cloister. In sum, we propose to see an

95.

102. 103.

evolutionary development of the rebuilding of the Crusader holy site and Church of the Holy Sepulcher that begins with the aedicule, the Chapel of St. Helena, and the conventual buildings, and only starts ca. 1131 for the church itself. See our further discussion in ch. 7. The point here is that after the initial church was founded, then the cloister was built, and after that the

major church was rebuilt, as with Cluny II, and Cluny III. On Cluny, see W. Braunfels, Monasteries of Western Europe, London, 1972, pp. 47-63; and K.J. Conant,

104.

Cluny: Les Eglises et la maison du Chef d’ordre, Cambridge, Mass., and Macon, 1968. At the Holy Sepulcher, Constantine IX rebuilt the Constantinian rotunda with a triporticus by 1048, then the Crusaders built the canons’ cloister after 1114, and finally they rebuilt the 1149.

L. Price, The Plan of Saint Gall in Brief, Berkeley, 1982, pp. xii, 24-26; Braunfels, Monasteries of Western Europe, London, 1972, rpt. Princeton, 1980; and P. Fergusson,

der ‘Auferstehungskirche’ in Jerusalem und die Bauten der ‘Franken’ im 12. Jahrhundert,” FS, 13 (1979), pp. 442-471, which focuses, however, on the

“The Refectory at Easby Abbey,” AB, LXXI (1989), pp334-351.

it is in Carthusian charterhouses that we see the

105.

cloister related to the apse of the main church in a manner comparable to what we eventually find at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. See Braunfels, pp11j-124.

oF.

age, pp. 87ff., 172¢f. Daniel, chs. 10-12, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 127-129. This translation of Daniel’s text was prepared by Will Ryan of the Warburg Institute. Ibid., p. 129. Ibid., p. 131. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, I, pp. 132-134, 256, interpret this passage as meaning that the Chapel of St. Helena was restored by the Crusaders. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 36, refers to the passage in a different guide, the “De Situ,” Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 173, to indicate that about 1109 this reconstruction was undertaken by the Crusaders. Robert Willis in G. Williams, The Holy City, 2nd ed., London, 1849, pp. 220-221, first observed that the vaulting of this chapel was probably Crusader. The only set of extant bronze doors, also early Byzantine, are those of the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem. See R. Jager, “Die Bronzetiiren von Bethlehem,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archiologischen Institutes, 45

(1930), pp. 91-115, and, most recently, Z. Jacoby, “The Medieval Doors of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem,” Le Porte di Bronzo dall'antichita al secolo XIII, ed. S. Salomi, Rome, 1990, pp. 121-134, Plates CXV-CXX1. For the mosaics see M.L. Bulst-Thiele, “Die Mosaiken

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which was dedicated in 96.

See the “First Guide”(1101), “Qualiter”(1103), the

Alan Borg, “The Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” comments on p. 4 of the typescript of his lecture that whereas the site probably played a big

role in locating the canons’ cloister and placement east

of the church was unusual, nonetheless “it is perhaps worth noting that at least one other Augustiman

501

later twelfth-century descriptions and Quaresmius. It should be noted here in passing that no pilgrim mentions anything about the canons’ cloister, even the most descriptive of the pilgrims in the second half of the twelfth century, apparently because the priory was not a holy site. Daniel wrote his account several years before the cloister was presumably started, so we would not expect him to comment onthe canons as hedid with the patriarch. Howev , it iscurious and unfortunate that he fails to mention the tomb of Godefroy, except for the fact that he was Russian and not Latin.

106.

107.

108.

For the Chapel of the True Cross, see Vincent and Abel,

189-199. Gurlitt’s dates are unreliable in regard to the

Jérusalem, Il, p. 270; for the Genoese inscription, see below, text and nt. 116.

Crusader period. 113.

in this commission. On Rengherio, see below, nt. 117. For the Arnulf Ciborium, see P. Lasko, Ars Sacra:

south side. This icon is not otherwise described; it ma

A. Stones points out that in the pilgrim’s guide to San-

tiago da Compostela, the use of “caput” appears to refer to a radiating chapel.

dia,” Rémisches Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, V1

(1942-1944), pp. 139-145. See e.g., F. Avril et al., Le Monde Roman: 1060-1220, Les

110.

Royaumes d’Occident, Paris, 1983, pp. 263-264, Figure 224, and Les Trésors des Eglises de France, 2nd ed., Paris, 1965, pp. 289-294, no. 534. F. Avril et al., Le Monde Roman: 1060-1220, Le Temps des Croisades, Paris, 1982, pp. 232-233, Figures 216-218. See also the reliquary of St. Alexander from Stavelot: Lasko, Ars Sacra, pp. 184-185, Plate 198. On the issue of

Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, IL, pp. 269-270, also

comments Theotokos reports a Mother of

the door of the entrance to the church (or chapel) of the

114.

and does not indicate that he saw the icon himself. See Daniel, ch. 15, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 131. “Guide by a German Pilgrim,” ch. 4, Jerusalem Pilgrim-

quaries of the Massif Central, Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1990. My thanks to Dorothy Glass for pointing out this study to me. Head reliquaries are important, inter alia, as a point of departure for life-

age, p. 119. It is near this spot that one finds today many crosses inscribed in the wall by pilgrims from the medieval and later periods. Such commemorative

size sculpture of the human figure in the Middle Ages. See for the Gero Crucifix, R. Haussherr, Der tote Chris-

ent reasons. There was a well-known example set on the walls of Jerusalem at the place where the first Crusaders entered the city.

crosses were found elsewhere in Jerusalem for differ-

tus am Kreuz, Zur Ikonographie des Gerokreuzes, Bonn, 1973, for the Volto Santo, C. Baracchini and M.T. Filieri, Il Volto Santo: Storia e Culto, Lucca, 1982. Large-scale figural sculptures in metalwork are a class of artwork from the Middle Ages now mostly lost, but which played an important role from the Early Christian period on. Among Constantine’s gifts

1Hhos

“De Situ,” Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 178. We discuss this controversial passage at some length in ch. 7.

116.

The two important recent articles on the inscription are B. Kedar, “Genoa’s Golden Inscription in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher: A Case for the Defense,” I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. G. Airaldi and B. Kedar, Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, 48, Genoa, 1986, pp. 319-335; and H.E. Mayer and MLL. Favreau, “Das Diplom Balduins I. fiir Genua und Genuas goldene Inschrift in der Grabeskirche,” Quellen und Forschungen

to the basilica of St. John Lateran, the Liber Pontificalis

mentioned “a ciborium of hammered silver, which has upon the

front the Saviour seated upon a chair, in height 5 feet,

weighing 120 lbs., and also the 12 apostles, who weigh

aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 55/56 (1976),

each 90 Ibs., and are 5 feet in height and wear crowns

pp. 22-95, esp. 24-38. The text of the inscription is quoted on p. 29; see also the text from Réhricht quoted by S. de Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum Crucesignatorim Terrae Sanctae, pp. 24-26, no. 32, with reproduction of the facsimile in

of purest silver; further, on the back, looking toward the apse are the Saviour seated upon a throne in height 5 feet, of purest silver, weighing 150 Ibs., and 4 angels of silver, which weight [sic] each 105 Ibs. and are 5 feet

in height and have jewels from Alabanda in their eyes and carry spears; the ciborium itself weighs 2025 ibs. of wrought silver.” (The Book of the Popes, cited by C. Davis-Weyer, Early Medieval Art: 300-1150, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971, p. 11) For a modern marble sculpture that makes a strong impression on the viewer similar to what these medieval works must have conveyed, see Thorwaldsen’s “Christ of Mercy” in the lobby of the Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore. A412:

on this image of the Virgin, calling it the from a later pilgrim’s report. Daniel also story concerning this “ikon” of the Holy God, locating the painting in the porch near

cross. But Daniel reports this story in the past tense

head reliquaries, see B.D. Boehm, Medieval Head Reli-

111.

P- 103. The

have been a painted panel or a fresco on the wall. It is not clear what “painted outside” (“ad caput”) Means.

800-1200, Harmondsworth, 1972, pp. 64-65, and Plate 58. On the baldacchino of S. Ambrogio see Geza de Francovich, “Arte carolingia ed ottoniana in Lombar-

109.

Saewulf, ch. 12, Jerusalem Pilgrimage

Chapel of St. Mary was on the north side of the rotunda, as a pendant to the Chapel of St. John on the

Daniel names no artist, but one wonders if the Bolognese goldsmith, Rengherio, could have been involved

the Genoese archives. See now also, M.-L. Favreau-Lilie,

117.

Die Italiener im Heiligen Land, Amsterdam, 1939, pp. 56, 99, 101ff., 206, 214, 227, 296, 328, 355ff., 358ff., with bibliography. For the older bibliography, see Hagenmeyer, “Chronologie,” ROL, 12 (1911), pp. 287-289. in my discussion I am following the argumentation of 8.Z. Kedar. Rohricht, Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani, 1, op. 8-9, no. 45; Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, IL, p. 139.

118.

J. Wilkinson, “The Tomb of Christ: An Outline of its

Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, I, pp. 266, 268, mentions the seating of the patriarch and canons, arid the access

to the gallery of the rotunda.

Structural History,” Levant, IV (1972), p. 84. See also the earlier study by C. Gurlitt, “Das Grab Christi in der Grabeskirche in Jerusalem,” Festschrift zum Sechzigsten

119.

See, for example, de Vogiié, Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte,

p. 221f.; Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, U, pp. 139; Mayer and Favreau, “Das Diplom Balduins 1,” Quellen

Geburtstag von Paul Klemen, Diisseldorf, 1926, pp.

und Forschungen, pp. 30-32.

502

120.

On the Byzantine churches the Crusaders found on arriv al in the Holy Land, see D. Pringle, “Churc h3uilding in Palestine before the Crusaders,” Crusader n the Twelfth Century, pp. 546.

121.

128.

161, 163. For an illustration of the jurisdictions of the

iliam of Tyre, Book 8, ch. 3, Chronicon, LXIIL, pp.

various communities under the status quo of 1852, see C. Schick, “Plan der heiligen Grabeskirche und Umge-

»--386, A History, I, pp. 343-344:

Before the coming of our Latin peoples, the place of e Lord’s passion, which is called Calvary or Golgo-

bung,” ZDPV, 8 (1885), after p. 340. Over the years various communities have appeared and disappeared, but the six-three major, three minor—indicated on Schick's plan are those found in the Holy Sepulcher today (1992). See on this quarter of the city: Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, Il, pp. 953-965. Pringle, “Church Building,” pp. 11, 34; and Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, Il, pp. 652-668

ha, was outside the limits of this church.It was here

that the wood of the Vivifying Cross was said to have en found. Here also, according to tradition, the body ' the Saviour when taken down from the Cross was

an rointed with ointment and wrapped with fragrant

spices in a linen winding cloth, according to the burial customs of the Jews. At that time there was only a rather small chapel here, but after the Christians, assisted by divine mercy, had seized Jerusalem with a strong hand, this building seemed to them too small.

Enlart, Les Monuments

Richard, The Latin Kingdom, p. 4; Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 190-191. B. Hamilton, “Rebuilding Zion, The Holy Places of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century,” Studies in Church History, 14 (1977), p. 111, sug-

Kedar, “Genoa’s Golden Inscription,” p. 321. Borg, “The Crusader Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” makes an interesting case for the central

“First Guide,” “Qualiter,” “Ottobonian Guide,” “Saewulf,” and “Guide by a German Pilgrim,”

125. 126.

jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 87-180. The most recent study on Daniel and his text is the introduction by K.D. Seemann, Abt Daniil: Walfahrtsbericht, Slavische Propylaen, bd. 36, Munich, 1970, pp. VII-LVIIL, to the newly republished edition of Venevitinov’s text. Daniel, chs. 1-97, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 120-171. Daniel, ch. 97, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp- 166-171.

135.

136.

137.

“Rebuilding Zion,” pp. 109, nt. 38. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 1, ch. 26, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 287-288, A History, p. 118.

138.

On the Church of St. James, see Vincent and Abel,

139.

Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 244-262; see also Daniel, chs. 40-41, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp.

140.

Hamilton, “Rebuilding Zion,” p. 107, says, referring to Daniel, that the Crusaders “repaired” the church and

tion, 35 (1966), pp. 16-43. Daniel, ch. 97, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 167. See on the

status quo: $. Sayegh, Le Statu Quo des Lieux-Saints:

Nature Juridique et Portée Internationale, Rome, 1971; and

Jérusalem, Il, pp. 522£., 529ff.; Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 237-240.

141-142.

141.

“roofed it with timber,” but Daniel says nothing specific about such activities. On the foundation of St. Mary, Mt. Sion, see Wilkinson,

142.

Nazareth Capitals and the Crusader Shrine of the Annunciation, University Park and London, 1987, pp. 33-34; and Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 243-249. De Roziére, Cartulaire, pp. 11-12, no. 11. See Hamilton,

Destruction de l’église de la Resurrection par le Calife Hakim et V/histoire de la descente du feu sacré,” Byzan-

127.

J. Delaville Le Roulx, ed., Cartulaire Générale de I'Ordre des Hospitaliers de St.-Jean de Jérusalem: 1100-1300, vol. 1,

Paris, 1894, no. 25, pp. 25-26. See also Hamilton,

Hamilton, The Latin Church, p. 170. This ceremony is

the Holy Sepulcher even today. See also on the history of the Holy Fire the following: M. Canard, “La

gests this convent would have originally been of the Eastern rite because Arda, wife of Baldwin I, was Armenian. This is possible but by no means certain. The king may in fact have wished to put her in a Latin convent for a variety of reasons. Daniel, chs. 17-18, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 132-133.

See on this part of the city, Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, II, pp. 969-973, and on these monuments see also Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 207-211, 214-221.

On the remarkable liturgy of the “New Fire,” see

one of the unique features of the Easter celebration at

183-189

“The First Guide,” ch. 2, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 87

velous wise included within its precincts the holy

124.

I, pp-

Saewulf, ch. 16, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 105.

places just described.”

role of Patriarch Arnulf in the instigation of the rebuilding plan. At this point I am willing to accept the importance of his role in regard to the canons’ cloister and, as such, as the first in a series of patrons who collectively supervised the emergence of the church complex that was dedicated in 1149. As yet, however, there is no persuasive evidence that Arnulf conceived the grand scheme to unify the various holy sites within one church, and there are reasons to prefer later possible patrons. Compare Daniel’s account in regard to Crusader artistic activities at this time and in terms of narrative descriptions found in the other early guides. See the

des Croisés,

(“Sainte Marie la Grande” [sic]).

Accordingly, they enlarged the original church and added to it a new building of massive and lofty construction, which enclosed the old church and in mar-

122. 123.

W. Zander, Israel and the Holy Places of Christendc New York, 1971. Daniel, chs. 73, 87, 89, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 156

Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099-1185, pp. 46-47; J. Folda, The

“Rebuilding Zion,” pp. 107-108, nt. 18. On the special

importance of Mt. Sion for the canons, and their early

century. See G. Kuhnel, “Wiederentdecke monastische

placement there, see P. Fergusson, “The Refectory at

Malereien der Kreuzfahrerzeit in der Judaischen Wiiste,” Romische Quartalschrift, 29 (198.4), Pp. 163-188

Easby Abbey,” AB, LXXI (1989), pp. 340-342. The presence of the Austin canons in the most

Daniel, however, mentioned no paintings and stil] an

important holy sites of Jerusalem (and Bethlehem)

ruins. The most recent publication of these monasteries is Y. Hirschfeld, “List of the Byzantine Monasteries ie

throws special urgency on the need for more research into their role and significance in the development of the early Latin Kingdom, a subject to which both Alan Borg and Rudolf Hiestand have drawn attention. In

the Judean Desert,” Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries, Essays in Honour of Virgilio C.

Corbo OFM, ed. G.C. Pottini et al., Jerusalem, 1999, pp. 1-90.

and around Jerusalem, Austin canons were also

143.

144.

located in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Templum Domini, and the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives. On the sanctuaries of the Valley of Jehoshaphat and

151.

See on Bethlehem, R.W. Schultz et al., The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, London, 1910; H. Vincent and

the Mount of Olives, see Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem,

EM. Abel, Bethléem: Le Sanctuaire de la Nativité, Paris,

Il, pp. 301-412, 805-853; Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, II, pp. 230-236. C.N. Johns, “The Abbey of St. Mary in the Valley of

R.W. Hamilton, The Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: A Guide, 2nd ed., Jerusalem, 1947, rpt. 1968; and B.

Jehoshaphat, Jerusalem,” QDAP, 8 (1930), pp. 117-124,

Bagatti, Gli Antichi edifici sacri de Betlemme, Jerusalem,

1914; Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, I, pp. 64-68;

1952:

asserts that King Baldwin I gave land to the monks of Notre Dame of Jehoshaphat as early as 1108; see Ch.

152.

153.

(1900), pp. 112-113. Later charters refer to the rebuilding of the church and to the hospital; see H.F.

Bernard, witness to a charter of Raymond of St. Gilles

154.

“Rebuilding Zion,” p. 108, nt. 23, points out that the monks were very successful at seeking money to build from western Europe. It is interesting moreover that the abbey had very close ties to Sicily and S. Italy by virtue of extensive holdings there, cited in charters from later in the twelfth century.

155. 156.

148. 149.

150.

CCKY, I, pp. 223-239. Daniel, ch. 71, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 154-155. Daniel, ch. 73, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 155-156. On Sebaste, see Enlart, Les Monuments

Enlart,

ton, “Rebuilding Zion,” p. 109.

147.

in 1106. Cf. Bresc-Bautier, Le Cartulaire, p. 186, no. 79. Daniel, ch. 51, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 145; L.H. Vincent and E.J.H. MacKay, Hébron: Le Haram el-Khalil, Sepulture des Patriarches, Paris, 1923; and see now Pringle,

Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 226-230; and Hamil146.

P. Riant, Etudes sur l'histoire de l’Eglise de Bethléem, vol. |,

Genoa, 1889, pp. 11-12, 93. The first prior was named

Delaborde, Chartres de Terre Sainte provenant de l’Abbaye de N.-D. de Josaphat, BEFAR, vol. 19, Paris, 1880, pp. 21-22, no. 1, and pp. 47-49, no. 19. Hamilton,

See Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, II, pp. 400-401;

For the grant of Pope Paschal II, see Vincent and Abel,

Bethléem, p. 141, and William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 12, A History, pp. 481-484.

Kohler, “Chartes de l’Abbaye de Notre-Dame de la Vallée de Josaphat en Terre-Sainte: 1108-1291,” ROL, 7

145.

Daniel, chs. 47-48, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 143-144,

The existence of a church structure here by the time of Daniel’s visit attests to the attention the Crusaders gave to the needs of the holy sites as rapidly as they could. On the other hand, the impressive capitals that decorate this shrine do not appear to date from this period; they will be discussed in ch. 8A. Daniel, ch. 24, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 135; see also Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, Il, pp. 400-402, who see the rebuilt church as a modest oratory, not the large building Daniel suggests. Although nothing of the Crusader building is extant today, this church was enlarged in 1152 and was apparently the object of considerable interest as a holy site in the twelfth century. Daniel, ch. 133, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 133.

157.

S. Saller, Excavations at Bethany: 1949-1953, Jerusalem, 1957, p. 64f., interprets the church that Daniel mentioned as the second church, from the Byzantine

159.

period. The third and fourth churches known here from archeological excavations are interpreted to be Crusader rebuilding from later in the twelfth century. Almost all these Byzantine monasteries would be the site of important wall paintings later in the twelfth

160.

des Croisés, Il, p.

341ff. Daniel distinguishes the sites, but says nothing about the Byzantine church over the place of the beheading. Daniel, chs. 86-87, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 161. On Mt. Tabor’s sites see B. Meistermann, Le Mont Thabor: Notices historiques et descriptives, Paris, 1900, and Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, I, pp. 380-395. On the Bene-

dictines in the Holy Land during

period, see B.

Gariador, Les anciens monastéres bénédictines en Orient, Lille-Paris, 1912, passim.

158.

Daniel, chs. 89-93, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 163-164. On Nazareth, see Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 292-297; and P. Viaud, Nazareth et ses deux églises de

l'Annonciation et de Saint-Joseph d’apres les fouilles récentes, Paris, 1910, passim. There is addi ional discus-

sion of Daniel’s account of Nazareth:

in Folda, The

Nazareth Capitals, pp. 9-10. For additional commentary on the issues surrounding the original Crusader church at Nazaieth, see Folda, The Nazareth Capitals, pp. 69-70, nt. 18.

Daniel’s account is confusing in regard to what happened after the ten days he spent in Tiberias, when the king returned from the Golan. Did the king continue on south to Jerusalem without Daniel, or did they g° together to the coast to Acre?

504

161. 162. 163.

164. 165.

Daniel, ch. 96, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 165. 170.

1050-1310, London, 1967, pp. 32-59.

171.

See Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, pp. 309-310, P. Riant, Expéditions et pélerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte au temps des Croisades, Paris, 1869, pp. 188-190; and R.M. Dawkins, The Visit of King Sigurd the Pilgrim to Constantinople, Athens, 1935, p. 56, for the date. Most recently, N.-K. Liebgott comments on Scandinavian pilgrims to the Crusader East in “Pélerinage et croisades,” Les Vikings . . . Les Scandinaves et l'Europe, 800-1200, 22@me exposition d’art du Conseil de I’Eu-

172.

On the images of Scandinavian saints in Bethlehem, see G. Kiihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Berlin, 1988, pp. 112-125; on the dating, see

;

2iley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 34-43.

Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 543-548.

On the German hospital, see Prawer, The Latin Kingdom ‘ Jerusalem, pp. 270-273. On the remains of their iurch in the southwest quarter of Jerusalem, see D. Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 1990,

pp. 97-98; M. Benveniste, The Crusaders in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, 1970, pp. 63-64, 346; A. Ovadiah, “A

Restored Crusader Church in the Jewish Quarter,” Christian News from Israel, 25 (1975), pp. 150-153; and an expanded report, idem, “A Restored Complex of the Twelfth Century in Jerusalem,” Actes du XVe Congres International d'Etudes Byzantines, Athens, 1976, vol. Il, Art et Archéologie, Communications, Athens, 1981, pp. 585-596. No consensus exists on the dating of this

rope, Paris, 1992, pp. 110-111.

pp. 128-147.

173.

church and the hospital associated with it, but an ori-

gin sometime in the 1120s is likely. We might also note the appearance of the Order of St. Lazarus in the 1120s as well. In contrast to the other orders, however, almost nothing of its original buildings remain, although we know they were located just inside the New Gate along the northwest wall of the 166.

167. 168.

city. Hamilton, The Latin Church, p. 105, points out that in

1136 King Fulk gave the castle of Beit Gibelin to the Hospitalers, their first military outpost. Saewullf, ch. 13, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 103-104. Melchior de Vogiié, Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, Paris, 1860, pp. 246-265, described the main buildings of the hospital complex in a long chapter, but dated the earliest Crusader churches to the 1130s. Baurath Dr. C. Schick reported on the investigations of the Hospitaler buildings in the muristan in various publications between 1870 and 1902, and he also published a sum-

mary of his findings with his often reproduced “Plan of Underground of the whole Muristan or Hospital of the Knight's St. John at Jerusalem’ (sic), PEFQS, 1902, pp. 42-56. Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, Paris,

1928, pp. 182-189, followed de Vogiie and Schick in reversing the names of the churches of Saint Mary

them Latin and Saint Mary the Greater, but also dated 1926, Paris, Il, m, ca. 1130 on. Vincent and Abel, Jérusale nomencorrect the to ed return 5, pp. 642-668, 953-96

clature and published plans of the two larger churches.

in the Holy More recently, see Beneveniste, Crusaders

Land, pp. 58-62, Boase, “Ecclesiastical Architecture and

nson, Jerusalem Sculpture,” HC, IV, pp. 84-85, and Wilki

Pilgrimage, pp. 26-28.

169.

of the Latin States,” HC, I, pp. 386-399; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, p. 95ff. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 44, A History, p. 199,

ibid., pp. 43, 51, 52. For the early history of the hospital, see J. Riley-Smith The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus ss

Book 2,chs. See for these years, Fulcher of Chartres,

42-47, A History, pp. 196-204, Historia Hierosolymitana,

pp. 534-563; William of Tyre, Book 11, chs. 13-18, A History, I, pp. 484-493, Chronicon, LXIIL, pp. 515-523; Mayer, The Crusades, pp. 67-70; Fink, “The Foundation

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 42, A History, pp.

196-197, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 534-536; William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 13, A History, I, pp. 484-486, Chronicon, LXII, pp. 515-516. William miscalculates

the date. 174.

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 44, A History, pp. 199-200, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 543-548; William

of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 14, A History, 1, pp. 486-488, Chronicon, pp. 517-519. 175. Mayer discusses Baldwin's problems with the socalled Arda, the ill-fated marriage with Adelaide, and Baldwin’s homosexuality in H.E. Mayer, Mélanges sur l'histoire du Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, Paris, 1984, pp. 49-72. 176. Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana, Book 12, chs. 13-14; RHC: Occ., IV, pp. 696-698; Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, chs. 51, 59, A History, pp. 209, 217-218, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 574-578, 599-601; William of Tyre, Book 11, chs. 1, 29, A History, 1, pp. 461-462, 513-514, Chronicon, LXIII, pp. 495-496, 541-543. See also Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, pp. 102-105; and, most recently, G.A. Loud, “Norman Italy and the Holy Land,” The Horns of Hattin, pp. 58, 61, comments on the consequences of the repudiation. , pp177. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 49, A History William ; 565-573 pp. a, lymitan 205-208, Historia Hieroso of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 19, A History, I, pp. 493-495, Chronicon, LXIIL, pp. 523-525. Neither Fulcher nor William explicitly reports the presence of the True Cross in the army, perhaps to avoid the ignominy of having to acknowledge defeat despite its presence. However, there can be no real doubt that it was brought along because the king was reported to have lost his flag, his tent, and many fine furnishings and silver vessels, that is, his valuable holdings on the march, and also the patriarch was on the campaign, as p. both authors mention. Hamilton, The Latin Church, view. my in ly correct 62, so interpreted the situation,

178.

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 51, A History, p. 209, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 574-578; William of Tyre,

Book 11, ch. 20, A History, 1, pp. 495-496, Chronicon, LXIIL, pp. 525. 179.

180. 181.

187.

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 54, A History, pp.

al., Les Royaumes d’Occident, pp. 396, no. 454 (Autun)

213-214, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 586-591; William

400, no. 463 (Jaca), 403, no. 466 (St. ‘sidoro); and F

of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 25, A History, I, pp. 503-505,

Avril et al., Le Temps des Croisades, p. 349, no, 424 6. Ambrogio).

Chronicon, LXII, pp. 532-534. Ekkehard of Aura, Libellus qui dicitur Hierosolymita, ch. 36, RHC: Occ., V, p. 40. On Shaubak, see P. Deschamps, Les Chateaux des Croisés en Terre Sainte, Il, La Défense du Royaume de Jérusalem, Paris, 1939, pp. 9, 13, 36-40, 42-48, 50-52, 55, 58, 59, 63,

188. 189. 190. 191.

67, 69, 73-75, 78, 182, and album, Plate I, J.J. Langen-

Coinages of the Crusader States,” Metal] urgy in Numis192.

and D.M. Metcalf, “Crusader Coinage with Arabic

tecture,” HC, IV, p. 149; and Pringle, “Crusader Castles: The First Generation,” Fortress, 1 (1989), pp. 17-18. On the history of the construction of the castle, see

now H. Mayer, Die Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Montréal

193.

(Sdbak): Jordanien im 12. Jahrhundert, Abhandlungen des

pp. 38-39.

the Chapel of Adam. For the discussion of Godefroy’s

tomb, see the bibliography cited earlier in ch. 3, nts. 36-49, and also de Vogtié, Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, pp: 196-197; and Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, IL, pp. 280-281. E. Horn, Ichnographiae Locorum et Monumentorum

William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 26, Chronicon, LXII, p-

535, A History, I, p. 506. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 55, A History, p. 215, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 592-593, is much more brief and describes nothing specific about the castle. Benveniste, The Crusaders in the Holy Land, pp. 321-324 with plan. See also Pringle, CCK], I (Jazirat Fara’un),

Veterum Terrae Sanctae, Rome, 1902, pp. 50-53; idem,

Ichnographiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae (1724-1744), ed. and trans. E. Hoade, 2nd ed., Jerusalem, 1962, pp. 70-72, provided a drawing of the

pp- 274-275, and Deschamps, Les Chateaux, II, La

Défense du Royaume de Jérusalem, pp. 9, 37-39, 44, 54, 74, 237, and album, Plate III. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 62, A History, p. 220, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 605-606, William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 30, A History, I, pp. 514-515, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 543. Pringle, CCKJ, I, pp. 111-115 (Cathedral of St. John, Beirut), and Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, II, pp. 68-78, 118-122. For St. John, Gibelet, see P. Deschamps, Terre Sainte Romane, pp. 227-230, and Figures 72-78. Deschamps, unlike Enlart, believes that the baptistery dates from before 1170, antedating the earthquake in that year along with the northern part of the church. For Paray-leMonial,

Baldwin I was buried in a tomb monument that is

reported to have imitated that of his brother, Godefroy, exactly and was located to the left of the entrance to

Deutschen Palastinavereins, Bd. 14, Wiesbaden, 1990,

186.

matics, I (1980), pp. 137-141. For a possible example of this coin type, see M. Bates Inscriptions,” HC, VI, pp. 439-448, and Plate XV, nos, 30, 31. Metcalf admits that “it is theoretically possible that the minting of gold by the crusaders might have begun at Acre even before the conquest of Tyre”; ibid., p- 441.

mamluk inscription in Arabic; Boase, “Military Archi-

185.

Ibid., pp. 10-11. See also A.A. Gordus and D.M. Met-

calf, “Neutron Activation Analysis of the Gold

Boase, Castles and Churches of the Crusading Kingdom, pp. 68-69, and an excellent color plate showing the round tower of the castle at the top of which is a large

184.

508-513, Chronicon, LXIU, pp. 536-541. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, p. 9.

nus des Croisés, I. La Chapelle du Chateau de Mon-

“Trois Monuments

tréal (Jordanie),” Genava, XII (1964), pp. 125-143;

183.

William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 27, A History, I, pp. 507-508, Chronicon, LXII, pp. 535-536. William of Tyre, Book 11, ch. 28, A Histor y, L, pp.

Incon-

dorf and G. Zimmermann,

182.

near Amalfi and is looking into these pavilionlik buildings of which there are many in Sicily and i Islamic architecture in the Near East. : For plans of the Western churches cited, see R Avril et

see H. Focillon,

tomb, and reproduced a different inscription on it. See ibid., Figure 7, p. 71. See also de Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum Crucesignatorum, pp. 57-59

194,

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 2, ch. 64, A History, pp-

221-223, Historia Hierosolymitana, 613-614. Epitaphium regis Balduini. Cum rex iste ruit, Francorum gens pia flevit, Cuius erat scutum, robur et auxilium. Nam fuit arma suis, timor hostibus, hostis et illis;

Dux validus patriae, consimilis losue Accon, Caesaream, Berytum, necne Sidonem

Abstulit infandis hostibus indigenis. Post terras Arabum vel quae tanguni mare

The Art of the West, I,

Rubrum,

Romanesque Art, London, 1963, Plate 132; for western

Addidit imperio, subdidit obsequio Et Tripolim cepit, sed et Arsuth non minus ursit, Pluraque praeterea fecit honore rata. Obtinuit regnum rex octo decemque per annos, Postea fit quod erat, ut quod erat fieret. Sedecies Phoebus Vervecis viserat astrum, Cum Balduinus rex obit eximius.

France, see A. Tcherikover, “Romanesque Sculpted

Archivolts in Western France,” Arte Medievale, 2nd ser., anno III (1989), pp. 49-74, for example, the churches at Pezou (Figure 5) or Le Mans (Figure 8).

Jill Caskey, a Ph.D. student at Yale University, is currently (1992) investigating the Rufolo Palace in Ravello

506

Chapter

5

10.

William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 7, A History, 1, pp

524-527. See also M.L. Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae Domus Mili-

William of Tyre, Book 12, chs. 1-4, A History, 1, pp

517-522, Chronicon, LXIII, pp. 547-551. Fulcher of

tiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri, Gottingen, 1974, p.

Chartres, Book 3, ch. 1, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp-

William of Tyre’s chronology, 1120 is the current dating for the founding of the order. See A. Forey, The Military

19ff. J. Riley-Smith has informed me that despite

615-616, A History, p. 225. Albert of Aachen, Book 12, \. 30, Historia Hierosolymitana, RHC: Occ., IV, p. 709.

Orders from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries,

Jone of these authors specifies exactly where the cere-

Toronto and Buffalo, 1992, p. 6ff.

mony took place. The solemnization did not include she formal coronation, which did not take place until

11.

Christmas of the following year, that is, after it was

13.

William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 7, Chronicon, p. 554. William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 7, A History, |, p. 523. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 9, Historia Hierosolymi-

clear that Eustace of Boulogne would not contest the

tana, RHC: Occ., Ill, p. 446, from Cambridge University

election. See H.E. Mayer, “The Concordat of Nablus,” journal of Ecclesiastical History, 33 (1982), p. 540, and his discussion of the death of Baldwin I and the succession

with variant orthography: Historia Hierosolymitana, p.

of Baldwin II in idem, Mélanges sur I’histoire du Roy-

aume Latin de Jérusalem, Paris, 1984, pp. 73-91. William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 6, A History, 1, p. 524, Chronicon, LXII, pp. 552-553. B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States, London, 1980, p. 64.

Hamilton, The Latin Church, p. 64. William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 6, A History, I, p. 523-524.

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 2, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 617-619, A History, pp. 225-226. R.L. Nicholson, “The Growth of the Latin States: 1118-1144,” HC, I, p. 412. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, Cambridge, 1952, pp. 146-147. William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 12, A History, I, p. 534,

Chronicon, LXIIL, pp. 560-562. References to the use of rings for such purposes are not infrequent, but no royal ring is extant that belonged to a Crusader king. William of Tyre, Book 12, chs. 5-12, A History, 1, pp523-535. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, chs. 3-7, Historia

Hierosolymitana, pp. 620-635, A History, pp. 226-232. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, pp. 147-154. The festival of the exaltation of the Holy Cross on September 14 commemorated the return of the True Cross to Jerusalem by Emperor Heraclius in 629. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 4, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 624-629, A History, p. 228. Walter the Chancellor, Book 2, chs. 4-5, De Bello Anti-

ochene, RHC: Occ., V, pp- 106, 108, 119; Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, Paris, 1961, pp- 316-317, no.

309. This was apparently a relic of the True Cross from

Antioch, about which very little is known. My thanks

‘o J. Riley-Smith for drawing my attention to this. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 5, Historia Hierosolymitana, p. 631, A History, p. 230:

“And the patriarch of Antioch went forth to meet the Most Holy Cross, the king, and the prelate who carried it. They all rendered thanks to God and poured out sweet praise to the Almighty, who through the power

of the Most Holy Cross gave victory to the

:

and brought back the Cross unharmed to Christendom. They wept from piety and sang from joy; ador-

ing they bowed with repeated genuflections before the

Cross so worthy of veneration, and rising gave thanks again with uplifted countenances.”

ms. 1786; see the edition of this text by Hagenmeyer 642; and S. Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum Crucesignatorum Terrae Sanctae, Jerusalem, 1974, p. 84. This passage is translated into English by J. RileySmith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus: 1050-1310, London, 1967, pp. 41-42: “Here lies Gerard, the humblest man in the East, the servant of the poor, hospitable to strangers, meek of countenance but with a noble heart, one can see in these walls how good he was. He was provident and active. Exerting himself in all sorts of ways, he stretched forth his arms into many lands to obtain what he needed to feed his own. On the sev-

enteenth day of the passage of the sun under the sign of Virgo, he was carried into Heaven in the hands of Angels.” 14. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 40-4. 15. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 7, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 633-635, A History, p. 232. William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 12, A History, I, p. 535. See also H.E. Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus und die Kronung der lateinischen Kénige von Jerusalem,” DOP, 21 (1967), p. 153. 16. See earlier, ch. 4. Note, however, that C. Cotiasnon, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, London, 1974, pp. 61-62, assumed that the canons’ cloister was built in the second half of the twelfth century, without explanation. 17. See for the Amico plan, the von Breydenbach-based woodcut, and the detail of the van Scorel painting: Wilkinson, “The Tomb of Christ: An Outline of Its Structural History,” Levant, TV (1972), pp. 85, 88, and Plate IX. The Amico plan (1591-1596) dates after the 1555 restoration of the aedicule by Boniface of Ragusa, and the earlier woodcut and van Scorel painting, when compared to it, provide evidence that, some minor details apart, none of its essential features was in the sixteenth century. See also Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, Il, pp. 293-296; and C. Gurlitt, “Das Grab Christi in der Grabeskirche in Jerusalem,”

Festschrift zum sechzigsten Geburtstag von Paul Clemen, Dusseldorf, 1926, pp. 189-199. Gurlitt refers to the renovation of the Holy Sepulcher in 1119 on pp. 193-194, but his dating of the pilgrims’ accounts from the Crusader period are often incorrect.

18.

from the Holy Sepulcher with evidence of seconda use there, have been published by 7. Jacoby, “The

V. Corbo, II Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme, vol. II,

Jerusalem, 1981, Plate 4, ground plan of the Holy Sepulcher after the eleventh-century restoration of Con-

Tomb of Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem (1 i85~1186), an, d

the Workshop of the Temple Area,” Gesia, XVII (1979) pp: 4, 7, Figures 4, 7; idem, “The Workshop of the Tem. ple Area in Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century: Its Oy.

stantine Monomachus, and Plate 6, ground plan of the

Holy Sepulcher at the time of the Crusaders. Corbo’s proposal that the main reconstruction of the aedicule took place in 1119 differs from the view of Wilkinson, who places the main rebuilding in the hands of the Byzantines by 1048. See Wilkinson, “The Tomb of Christ,” p. 84. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, UL, pp. 248ff., 260-266, interpret the aedicule as being rebuilt by 1048, but then the major Crusader renovation being in 1106,

gin, Evolution and Impact,” ZfiirK, 45 (1982), Pp. 326

334, Figures 3, 20, 22a, 24; Z. Jacoby et al., A Display of Crusader Sculpture at the Archaeological

no. 4. Some of this material was also published by H.

Buschhausen, Die siiditalienische Bauplastik im Kénie-

reich Jerusalem, Vienna, 1978, p. 143ff., Plate 72¢f. and passim, but he proposed to date it even later, in the

not 1119. 19.

The spelling differs, sometimes “Renghiera Renghieri,” sometimes “Rhengiera” or “Rhengiero Rhengieri.” Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 38, gives the full reference to G. Mariti, Istoria dello stato presente della

22.

Excavations at Bethany, Jerusalem, 1957, pp. 109-116,

124-126, Plate 81. The figural sculpture from Bethany

source for “Renghiera Renghieri.” See also, V. Corbo, II

is later and must date from the mid-twelfth century.

See our discussion in chs. 6 and 8.

pp. 198-199; Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, IL, p. 263 and

23.

Corbo, II Santo Sepolcro, II, photo 184. This architec-

tural fragment must be compared with work from the south facade of the Holy Sepulcher dating from the

nt. 2; and J. Wilkinson, “The Tomb of Christ: An Out-

line of Its Structural History,” Levant, IV (1972), p. 84.

1140s; see ch. 7. It should be noted that if the more “Eastern” sculpture, that is, the cut-out floral cornice

Gurlitt, “Das Grab Christi,” also gives Mariti as the

source for “Rhengiero Rhengieri” without discussion or other references. G.K. Nagler, Neues allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexikon, Linz, 1909, 2nd ed., vol. 14, p. 276, reports that Renghieri was a sculptor from Bologna who came on the First Crusade with Tancred and Bohemond and lived first in Antioch. He came to Jerusalem at the behest of Bald-

win II in 1119 and carved an inscription over the altar of the Holy Sepulcher, apparently conflating the Genoese inscription commission and the redecoration project of 1119. No sources for this information are given. One indeed wonders if he could be the same man as the goldsmith Rengherio [sic], also from Bologna, who was paid to do the Genoese inscription in the Holy Sepulcher in 1106. Cf. RGhricht, Regesta

24.

with spiky design set against a flat neutral ground, should prove to be the most strongly associated with this campaign of work on the aedicule, a major question arises concerning why a sculptor from Bologna should be working in this style. This issue needs further exploration. The earliest occurrence is on seals of the Latin patriarchs of Jerusalem. See those of Gormond (1118-1128) and William I (1130-1145), cited below in nts. 62, 63. For metalwork see, for example, H. Meurer, “Zu den

Staurotheken der Kreuzfahrer,” ZfiirK, 48 (1985), pp. 70, 73, twelfth-century altars and reliquaries with rep-

resentations of the Holy Sepulcher executed in Jerusalem, now in Agrigento and the Louvre. We shall discuss these reliquaries more extensively later. For

Regni Hierosolymitana (MXCVII-MCCXt), vol. I, Innsbruck, 1904, pp. 8-9, no. 45, and Enlart, Les Monuments

21.

time of Frederick II, 1228-1229, which in my view jg impossible. Corbo, II Santo Sepolcro, III, photos 181-182, S. Saller,

citta di Gerusalemme, tom. I, Livorno, 1790, p. 142, as the Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme, vol. I, Jerusalem, 1982,

20.

Museum (Rocke-

feller), Jerusalem, 1987, pp. 11-12, no. 2 (i and IV); p. 13,

des Croisés, Il, p. 139.

manuscript illumination, see the codices cf William of Tyre’s History of Outremer, Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 9084, fol.

If Renghiero was in fact the sculptor, it is an important example to indicate that Italian sculptors were

1r, and Florence, Biblioteca Lauren LXI.10, fol. 89v, which were illustrated

1a, ms. Plut. about 1286,

prominent early in the history of the Latin Kingdom, that they took on significant projects along with French-trained artists from western Europe, and that he is the earliest documented sculptor from the West to work in the Crusader East.

and 1290/91 in St. Jean d’Acre even

after regular

access to Jerusalem was lost, but reflecting the actual

appearance of the Holy Sepulcher from the twelfth century. See H. Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the

Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford, 1957, Plate 135f,,

Corbo, II Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme, vol. I, P99;

and J. Folda, Crusader Manuscript I!lu

attributes fourteen sculpture fragments to the aedicule at the time of Renghiera Renghieri: See vol. Il, photo nos. 178-188. Unfortunately he does not give any additional discussion about these sculptures.

Jean d’Acre, 1275-1291, Princeton,

tion at Saint-

1976, Plate 148,

respectively. 25.

Daniel, ch. 10, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 128, Theodorich, ch. 5, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 278-279, Johannes Pho-

vol. III,

cas, ch. 14.18, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 324. Theodorich

Jerusalem, 1981, photos 178, 179, 180, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188. Most of these fragments, many of which come

also mentions the mosaics in the vestibule. We shall

Corbo, I] Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme,

discuss the problem of the mosaics in chapter 8.

508

j Vince and E.J.H. MacKay, Hébron: Le Haram el-

26.

phrase, “ad [or “in”] basilicam dominici Sepulcri

il, Paris, 1923, p. 163ff., esp. 166-168, and Pringle,

27. 28.

should be taken to refer only in a general way to the

CCKI], I, pp. 223-239. Daniel, ch. 53, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 147.

Church of the Holy Sepulcher, not to any modification of the rotunda into a longitudinal ecclesiastical struc-

Latin text exists that describes the cave of the patri-

ture of the sort the Crusaders dedicated in 1149

archs, but two Arabic texts were also written describ« the site from this period. For the Latin text, see

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, chs. 21-26, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 673-693, A History, pp. 245-254. William of Tyre, Book 12, chs. 18-20, A History, L pp

-actatus de inventione sanctorum patriarcharum .braham, Ysaac et Jacob,” RHC: Occ., V, pp. 302-316 nd Vincent and MacKay, Hébron, pp. 168-176; for the bic texts, ibid., p. 166 and nt. 6. 29.

ibid., pp. 66-114, and Pringle, CCK], I, pp. 229-239. Pringle proposes to date the Crusader work to

541-544. On these sites in the County of Edessa, see R

Gardiner, “Crusader Turkey: The Fortifications of

Edessa,” Fortress, 2 (1989), p. 23ff. 41.

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 27, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 693-695, A History, p. 255. William of Tyre,

1119-1131, see p. 239.

Book 12, chs. 22-24, A History, |, pp. 548-552. Fulcher is

30.

J. Prawer, The Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem, London, 1972,

not specific about which churches the ornaments were

31.

William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 13, A History, 1, pp-

objects

535-536; Mayer, “The Concordat of Nablus,” Journal of

Hierosolymitanae ornamentae”], that is, lamps,

Ecclesiastical History, 33 (1982), p. 531ff., Mayer, The Crusades, trans. J. Gillingham, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1988,

censers, candlesticks, and the like, we once again have

pp. 74-75; Hamilton, The Latin Church, pp. 64-65. Hans Mayer discusses this incident at some length in his article “Jérusalem et Antioche au Temps du Bau-

Jerusalem. William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 25, A History, |, pp.

32.

pp. 135-136.

taken from, but assuming that these were various

tana, pp. 736-737, A History, p. 267; for his full version

Z. Avalishvili, “The Cross from Overseas,” Georgica, 1 (1936), pp. 3-11. The texts of Anseau’s (also known as

Ansellis) letters are published in Gallia Christiana, vol. VII, Instrumenta, 2nd ed., Paris, 1874, cols. 44-46; and the PL, vol. CXLIL, cols. 729-732.

On the earlier examples of relics of the True Cross

being sent to the West, see ch. 4, nts. 23 and 171.

Eulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 10, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 643-645, A History, p. 235. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, pp. 158-159.

tbid., p. 160ff., Nicholson, “The Growth of the Latin States,” HC, I, pp. 417-420.

Lateiner in Jerusalem zur Zeit der Kreuzziige,” His-

torisches Jahrbuch, 32 (1911), pp- 578-597. However, his

hyperbole

clearly expresses the anxiety that

invasion. jerusalemites apparently felt at this new

39.

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 19, Historia Hierosolymithe tana, p. 666, A History, p. 243. It appears that

ecclesiae

of the siege and capture, see chs. 28-34, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 695-742, A History, pp. 255-269; for William of Tyre’s account, see Book 13, chs. 1-14, A History, 1, pp. 1-21, Chronicon, LXII1, pp. 584-602. The most abundant compendium of texts on the siege, including Arabic sources, with accompanying commentary is found in M.H. Chehab, Tyr 4 l'Epoque des Croisades, vol. 1, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, XXVI (1975), pp. 135-175. The dramatic site of Tyre and its cathedral can be studied in the publication of A. Poidebard on the ancient harbor: Un grand port disparu: Tyr, Paris, 1939, Plate 1 and carte 1. William of Tyre, Book 13, chs. 1-5, A History, Il, pp. 1-10, Chronicon, LXIII, pp. 584-592. The references to the cathedral are in Book 20, ch. 1, p. 344, Book 21, ch. 26, p. 438, A History, Il, pp. 344 and 438, respectively. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 37, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 746-749, A History, pp- 271-272. Fulcher apparently wrote his history in three phases, and ch. 37 belongs to the final revision in 1127. See Hagenmeyer in Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 42-48. ia Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, chs. 38, Histor 3. 272-27 pp, Hierosolymitana, pp. 749-752, A History pp. Il, y, Histor A 15, ch. 13, Book William of Tyre, 2, 21-23. See also Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Latin the of h pp. 171-172, and Nicholson, “The Growt States,” HC, I, p. 423.

also Mayer, The Crusades, p. 75. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 9, Historia Hierosolymitana, pp. 638-642, A History, pp. 232-233. G. Bautier, “L’Envoi de la Relique de la Vraie Croix a Notre-Dame de Paris en 1120,” Bibliotheque de I’Ecole des Chartes, 129 (1971), pp. 387-397. Mme Bautier redates this important event to 1120/1121 from 1108/1109, as proposed in earlier studies. See esp. Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, pp. 310-311, no. 298,

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 18, Historia Hierosolymi‘ana, pp. 665, A History, p. 242. Given the evidence pertaining to liturgical processions from the mid-twelfth century, it is probably an exaggeration for Fulcher to say they went in procession to all the churches in jerusalem. See A. Schénfelder, “Die Prozessionen der

[“pretiosiora

552-556. Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, ch. 34, Historia Hierosolymi-

Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, 1980, p. 719ff.; see

34.

metalwork

an indication of an established center for metalwork in

douin II,” Comptes-rendus des séances, Académie des

33.

of

47.

Nothing apparently survives of this small castle today,

n for nor has any consensus been reached on its locatio

Les which Fulcher is the main source: P. Deschamps, Roydu Défense La 1, ainte, Terre-S en Chateaux des Croisés ies the aume de Jérusalem, Paris, 1939, p. 9, nt. 3, identif st of outhea east-s km 15 site as Helaliye, or Hlaliye,

g identify these coins as group BY 26 from # 1€ catalogue by P. Balog and J. Yvon, iMonnaies a légendes arabes de l’Orient Latin,” RN, 6eme sér., I (1958), Pp. 133¢¢ 139-140, 150. Acre and Tyre were likely places for the mints because of their importance as commercial cen-

Beirut, disagreeing with Rey, Les Colonies franques de Syrie aux XIe et XIII siécles, Paris, 1883, p. 524, who located the site at Deir el-Qala, east of Beirut. R. Dus-

saud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale, Paris, 1927, p. 73, doubted Rey, but did not propose an alternative and did not know of Deschamps’s idea. 48.

49.

ters, and the existence of Fatimid

these cities were captured.

59.

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, chs. 40-46, 50, Historia

51. D2.

53.

55.

New Hoards and Stray Finds from the Time of the Crusades,” Hamburger Beitriige zur Numismatik, 29 /B (1968-1969), pp. 444, 452-455, wonders if the Luccan

Fulcher of Chartres, Book 3, chs. 51-61, Historia

billon deniers could have been generated by the Pisans

William of Tyre, Book 13, chs. 19-21, A History, Il, pp.

for use in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, even to the extent that the Pisans might have been minting Luccan

30-34.

coinage in the Levant. Relevant to this possibility, Met-

calf points out that later in the century an arrangement

William of Tyre, Book 13, chs. 22, 27, A History, II, pp.

34-35, 43-45. J. Porteous, “Crusader Coinage with Greek or Latin Inscriptions,” HC, VI, pp. 365-366, Plate II, nos. 12, 13. D.M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East, London, 1983, p. 8. Variations on the Virgin orans type constitute one of the most common types of image on Byzantine coins and seals. See M.F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire: 1081-1261, Washington, D.C., 1969, pp. 436-437; G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de I'Empire Byzantin, Paris, 1884, passim. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, p. 8. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l'Empire Byzantin, pp. 19-20. St. George mounted, spearing the dragon, appears on the seal of a civil domestic of the imperial palace, p. 502, but the overwhelming majority of the numerous seals with St. George, one of the most popular of Byzantine saints, represent George as a standing male soldier. In coins George also appears somewhat less frequently, but nearly always as a standing male soldier saint. See Hendy, Coinage, p. 437. Hendy, Coinage, p. 367, Plate II, nos. 20-22, Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 7-8, and J. Yvon, “Les Monnaies de Roger d’Antioche au type de S. Georges,” Bulletin de la Société Frangaise de Numismatique, 21eme année, 1966, pp. 29-30. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, p. 14. Porteous, “Crusader Coinage,” HC, VI, p. 371, CJ. Sabine, “The Billon and Copper Coinage of the Crusader County of Tripoli, c. 1102-1268,” NChr, ser. 7, 20 (1980), pp. 71-112; idem, “The Billon and Copper Coinage of the County of Tripoli to c. 1268,” Coinage in

was worked out between Lucca and Pisa so that Pisa

would cease to mint coins on the model of Lucca’s.

David Herlihy, “Pisan Coinage and the Monetary

Development of Tuscany, 1150-1250,” ANSMN, VI (1954), pp. 151-152, pointed out that in 1158, Pope Hadrian, later in 1175 and 1176, Frederick I, and finally

in 1182, Pope Lucius, sought to stop the Pisans from

60.

61. 62. 63.

See also Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum, p. 130, no. 176. M. de Vogiié, Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, Paris, 1860, p. 88; and S. Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum, p. 68, no. 80. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Orient Latin, p. 73; Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum, pp. 68-69, no. 81. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de I’Orient Latin, p. 74, Plate I, 7 and 8, and the slightly earlier version known only from a drawing, Plate XX, 4.

G. Kihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Berlin, 1988, pp. 52-57, has made

a consider-

able issue out of the very vague indication of the shape

of the miter on the seal from 1137 (p. 54), saying that it is conical, and about the 1136 seal known from the drawing he wrote: “A tall mitre which, despite its tendency toward a triangular shape, cannot be of the third

kind. What we have here is probably an inaccurate drawing of the sharpened mitre” (p. 54). I see the latter example as clearly a triangular-shaped miter; the prob-

International Series, vol. 77, Oxford, 1980, pp. 41-46. M. Bates and D.M. Metcalf, “Crusader Coinage with Arabic Inscriptions,” HC, VI, pp. 427, 429-430, 439-442, Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 9-11, and

lem is whether this drawing is accurate. Drawings of

seals and coins are notoriously inaccurate, as compari-

William of Tyre, Book 12, ch. 25, Chronicon, LXII, p-

58.

forging Luccan deniers in Tuscany and to have the authentic coins of Lucca used as the standard and only Tuscan currency. If the Pisans were also minting copies of Luccan coins in the Latin Orient, this might explain the existence of substantial quantities of crude versions of Luccan coinage in the twelfth century, in the absence of any royal billon coinage before the 1150s. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Orient Latin, p. 3, no. 4, and the comparative seal of Baldwin I on Plate XVI, 1.

the Latin East, ed. P.W. Edbury and D.M. Metcalf, BAR

57.

Metcalf, “Coins of Lucca, Valence, and Antioch: Some

Hierosolymitana, pp. 753-774, 784-793, A History, pp. 273-283, 288-292. William of Tyre, Book 13, chs. 16-18, A History, I, pp. 23-30. Hierosolymitana, pp. 793-822, A History, pp. 292-303.

50.

mints there when

son of examples with the extant objects will indicate!

579ff. See the comments of Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3, Cambridge, 1954, pp. 363-364, on the gold coinage of the Crusaders. Bates and Metcalf, “Crusader Coinage,” HC, VI, p. 442, Plate XV, nos. 30, 31,

Despite the venerability of this image in the sense that it was continuously represented since Early Christian

times, it should be noted that the image of the Marys at the tomb does not occur on Byzantine seals or coins,

and the use of three as opposed to two Marys is char-

510

icteristic Western iconography. See Schlumberger, Sigilographie de l’Orient Latin, pp. 24-26, Hendy, Coinage ssim. On the iconography, see G. Schiller, Iconogra-

phy of Brasius, specifically on the shape of the miter he wears. Quite apart from the hazards of dating works of art on the basis of iconography instead of style, except

of Christian Art, Ill, Gittersloh, 1971, p- 18ff., Plates

for the most firmly dated iconographical developments, and even if one accepts the premise that the

» the seal of Evremar, archbishop of Caesarea and former patriarch of Jerusalem (1107-1123), with the ene of St. Peter baptizing Cornelius, patron of the

advent of different types of miter can be chronologically identified in any individual region, he does not seem to have taken full account of all the relevant evi-

vurch of Caesarea (Schlumberger, Sigillographie de vient Latin, p. 94, Plate XX, 12); that of Jean, bishop of Acre, a seal on a document of 1135 with a beautiful ross @ double traverse on the reverse, a symbol of the cathedral cross at Acre that was dedicated to the Holy Cross (ibid., p. 101, Plate XX, 11); that of Roger, bishop of Lydda, from an act of 1115, with an image of a mounted St. George with cross-decorated weapons,

dence pertaining

1150, he does not make a firm case for why it could not be slightly earlier, in view of the recorded evidence

about the 1136 seal of Patriarch William L Nor does he consider the obvious possibility that St. Brasius, if painted ca. 1130, as seems likely, may be the earliest extant example of a bishop wearing the triangularshaped miter in the Crusader States. If this is the case, it should not be surprising to find the iconography developing in a more progressive medium such as monumental painting, in contrast to the more conservative developments of sigillography. Finally, he also

but surprisingly not vanquishing a dragon (ibid., pp. 113-114); and that of Fulcher, archbishop of Tyre, with

a “portrait” of the city as a walled, three-towered fortification (ibid., p. 90-91, Plate III, 1). Other early episcopal seals such as that of the bishop of Tripoli are too

66.

67.

68.

6 9. 7 0.

fragmentary to be evaluated in this context. On the paintings at Bethlehem, see the basic work: G. Kiihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, pp. 15-22, Plates II-VI, Figures 3-9. For the previous bibliography, see pp. 1-14, and especially p. 11, nt. 35, for previous work on the paintings. On the stars, see G. Galavaris, “The Stars of the Virgin: An Ekphrasis of an Ikon of the Mother of God,” Eastern Churches Review, 1 (1966-1968), pp. 364-369. See de Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum, pp. 224-225, for these inscriptions; and for paleographical discussion of the problems of reading and interpreting these inscriptions, see Kiihnel, Wall Painting, pp. 16-19. Kiihnel, p. 17, asserts that “the letter ‘W’ indicates Anglo-Saxon or northern origins in preference to a Latin name,” but such an interpretation is premature until we discern whether the letter stands for a name. Even if the letter could be shown to refer to the name of the male pilgrim, the notion that it must be Anglo-Saxon or northern European seems unduly restrictive.

does not explain whether this miter form is found in its earliest representations in the Holy Land, or reflects Western practice; the examples for which he cites are all later than 1150. See Kiihnel, Wal! Painting, pp 49-58. For St. Anne and the Virgin, see ibid., p. 28ff., Plate IX,

Figure 3, no. 5; for St. Leo, see ibid., p. 60ff., Plates XVII-XVIIL, Figure 3, no. 6. 74.

76.

For the image of St. James, see ibid., pp. 40-43, Plate XIII, Figures 3 and 30, no. 1; for St. Olaf, see ibid., p. 116ff., Plates XXXIV-XXXV, Figure 3, no. 13. Ibid., pp. 33, 137-138. For the tradition of the iconography of loca sancta, and iconographic references to Bethlehem, in particular, the cave, see K. Weitzmann, “Loca Sancta and the Representational Arts of Palestine,” DOP, 28 (1974), pp. 36-39. For the iconography of the three Magi, see G. Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, 1, Gitersloh, 1966, trans.

1971, J. Seligman, pp. 94-114, Plates 245-298. Although the separation of the Magi, one on one side and two on the other side of the Virgin and Child, is frequent only in the fifteenth century in western Europe, certain conspicuous earlier examples exist, of which the mosaics of the arch of Sta. Maria Maggiore and the apse frescoes of Sta. Maria de Tahull are the most important. In these cases, however, the Magi are on the same ground level as the Virgin and Child. Weitzmann, “Loca sancta” and the Representational Arts of Palestine,” pp. 52-54, and, for more detailed studies of Sinai icons by Weitzmann, gathered together from several sources, see the section on “Crusader

Ibid., p. 17 and nts. 50-52.

Ibid., Figures 10 and 11. In the Vladimir Madonna (K. Weitzmann, The Icon: Holy Images — Sixth to Fourteenth

Century, New York, 1978, pp. 80-81), the child is a little man who sits on his mother’s right arm and hand as she lightly touches him with the ends of her fingers of the left hand. In a Western example, Lyon ms. 410 (W.

p. Cahn, Romanesque Bible Illumination, Ithaca, 1982, 273, no. 75), the child’s body is that of a pudgy baby

with an incongruously mannish head, but the Virgin holds him firmly with both hands. He is, however, standing, actually striding, so she only holds him close to her, but does not support his weight.

Icons,” in Studies in the Arts at Sinai, Princeton, 1982,

Kiihnel, Wall Painting, p. 48ff., Plates XV- XVI, Figure 3,

especially pp. 291-408. The presence of the Bethlehem cave iconography on

no. 4. “IN

to the picture in w hich the miter

appears in this case. And though he asserts that the triangular miter form does not enter medieval art until

Ibid., pp. 140-141. Kiihnel seems to arrive at this dating largely on the basis of his analysis of the iconogra-

this column painting also raises the question whether

511

throughs with regard

there was in fact, in the grotto itself, an icon of the

Glykophilousa suggesting this image to the artist, or

hundreds of relics and reliquaries of the True Cage

whether the introduction of the cave setting was the

cited by Frolow.

artist’s own iconographic innovation. Certainly there was a long tradition of monumental icons with images of the Virgin and Child enthroned in the Near East dating from the Early Christian period. One of the most impressive is the sixth-century Cleveland Tapestry: see

79.

83.

cross arm: 11.1 cm; width of small cross arm, 79 cae

the stones, 0.8 cm; diameter of large medallion, 1.85

D.G. Shepherd, “An Icon of the Virgin: A Sixth-century Tapestry Panel from Egypt,” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 56 (1969), pp. 90-120. That such icons are associated with the holy places is also known from pilgrims’ accounts. See for example, Epiphanius the Monk, ca. 800, who says there were pictures in the caves at Bethlehem to record what happened; J.

cm; diameter of small medallions, 1.60 cm.

Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster, 1977, p. 117.

medallions at the ends of the stem and arms is found in the Byzantine repoussée cross from the reliquary at

The reliquary is today mounted on a polyhedral rock

crystal that is probably not original. We shall see eyjdence for original mounting configurations when we

compare this reliquary with other extant examples in ch. 6. The basic idea of this double-barred cross with

Limburg an der Lahn, illustrated in Beckwith, The Art

See on the role of the Italian merchant cities in the Heiligen Land, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 150-229. See Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, pp. 286-322,

85.

For the history of Denkendorf at this time, see K. Elm “St. Pelagius in Denkendorf: Die alteste deutsche Propstei des Kapitels vom Hlg. Grab in Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung,” Landesgeschichte und Geistesgeschichte: Festschrift fiir Otto Herding zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. K. Elm, et al. = Ver6ff. der Komm.

Byzantine Coins, London, 1982, pp. 177, Plate 42, no, 765, p. 179, Plate 43, no. 779), and middle Byzantine

reliquaries such as that of Constantine VII now in Limburg an der Lahn (K. Wessel, Byzantine Enamels, Reck-

linghausen, 1967, pp. 75-78, no. 22, with another

fiir

important illustration in J. Beckwith, The Art of Con-

Geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Wiirttemberg,

stantinople, London, 1961, p. 91, Figure 116). It also appears in aristocratic psalters such as Berlin, Universitétssamlung, cod. 3807 (late eleventh/early twelfth

Reihe B, Forschungen, 92 Bd., Stuttgart, 1977, pp.

80-130. For the history of Denkendorf as related to this cross, with references to the documents recording the papal privileges and the sending of the relics to Denkendorf, see W. Fleischhauer, “Das romanische Kreuzreliquiar von Denkendorff,” Festschrift fiir Georg Scheja, Sigmaringen, 1975, pp. 64-68; H. Meurer, “Kreuzreliquiare aus Jerusalem,” Jahrbuch der staatlichen Kunstsammlungen

c.) and Dumbarton Oaks, cod. 3 (1084). See A. Cutler,

The Aristocratic Psalters in Byzantium, Paris, 1984, Figures 99, 318.

In the West, the True Cross as a double-barred cross

is found in various early insular manuscripts, and in various early reliquaries (M. Werner, “The Cross-Carpet Page in the Book of Durrow: The Cult of the True

in Baden-Wiirttemberg, 13

(1976), pp. 7-17. For a summary of the history of Denkendorf in general, see the articles by D. Metzger and H.

Cross, Adomnan,

Meurer in 850 Jahre Denkendorf: 1129-1979, Denk-

eleventh-century reliquary in the shape of the doublearmed cross is known from Tonsberg, Norway, probably of German manufacture. See N.-K. Liebgott,

and Iona,” AB, LXXII (1990), p.

174ff., esp. pp. 180-223, Figures 1, 5, 6b, 7, 10, 14). An

endorf, 1979, pp. 8-17.

82.

of Constantinople, p. 91, Figure 116; see below, nt. 85. The True Cross in this particular configuration has a long history, which, in the East, stretches back to the Byzantine coins of Theophilus (829-842), Constantine Vil Porphyrogenitus (913-959) and later (P. Grierson,

esp. nos. 258, 259, 285, 297, 298, 311, 314, and 318; and see also our discussion earlier, in chs. 3-5.

81.

A

Additional dimensions are as follows: width Of large

depth of cross, 1.3 cm; diameter of circular mounts fo,

Latin Kingdom, M.-L. Favreau-Lilie, Die Italiener im

80.

to the identification 0 f

Jerusalem-produced goldsmiths’ work, among th

I should like to express here my warm gratitude to Dr. Heribert Meurer of the Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum for his assistance in studying and photographing this reliquary, and for the extraordinary kindness of taking me to visit Denkendorf. The argument that this reliquary was made in Jerusalem partly depends on comparisons with closely related reliquaries from Barletta and Kaisheim, both of which date after 1130. I am reserving my discussion of the comparative evidence that links the Denkendorf reliquary to Jerusalem until ch. 6, where all three objects can be considered together with other examples. The credit for first making this argument is owed

“Pélerinages et croisades,” Les Vikings .. . Les Scandinaves et l'Europe, 800-1200, Paris, 1992, pp. 111, Figure

4, and 355, no. 489. For the Crusader seals, see Schlur!

er, Sigillogra-

phie de lOrient Latin, e.g., Plate V, 5, 4
ry, Il, p. 486, William of Tyre, Book 22, ch. 22, A Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix,

597

p. 290, no. 20.

226.

It is interesting that William of Tyre uses the bezant as the monetary unit for this taxation, reflecting practice in Jerusalem from the early days of the Latin Kingdom.

240. 241.

The bezant in 1183 was not, however, worth what it

had been in the first half of the century. A monetary reform carried out sometime between the Second Crusade and 1165 apparently reduced the gold content to 80 percent. So far as we know the design of the coins

did not change at this time. See Metcalf, Coinage of the

227.

Crusades and the Latin East, pp. 9-12. William of Tyre, Book 22, ch. 23, A History, II, p. 486489.

228.

William of Tyre, Book 22, ch. 26, A History, II, p. 494,

229.

William of Tyre, Book 22, chs. 26-27, A History, II, pp:

242. 243.

244.

231.

232.

233.

Ernoul, Chronique d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed.

L. de Mas-Latrie, Paris, 1871, ch. CXLVI, pp. 118-119.

235.

E. Horn, Ichnographiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae (1724-1744), ed. and trans. E. Hoade, 2nd ed., Jerusalem, 1962, p. 73-75. Horn described the richly decorated Tomb of Baldwin V, to be discussed later, as “more beautiful than the rest,” including that of Baldwin IV. Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V,’ pp. 10-11, Figure 12, “The Workshop of the Temple Area,” Pp. 326 and 327,

236. 237.

238.

239.

L

598

‘

Weitzmann et al., The Icon, p. 202. See ch. 9. Hamilton, The Latin Church, pp. 172-186, pointe d out

that the status of the Orthodox differed jn Antioch,

248.

249. 250. 251.

the empire, and in Jerusalem, which they did not. Hamilton, The Latin Church, p. 162, and J. Riley-Smith,

The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem: 1174-1277, London, 1973, pp. 10-11. See ch. 9, nt. 305. Hamilton, The Latin Church, pp. 165-169. Kihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,

pp- 181-191, Plates LXII-LXXI.

On the Theoctitus

Monastery, see Y. Hirschfeld, “List of the Byzantine

Monasteries in the Judean Desert,” Christian A rchaeol-

253.

ogy in the Holy Land: New Discoveries, Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini et al., Jerusalem, 1990, pp. 12-13. Kihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 191. Buchthal, Miniature Painting, pp. 35-38, and A. Weyl

254.

Provincial Tradition, Chicago, 1987, pp. 142-155. L.-A. Hunt, “The Syriac Buchanan Bible in Cambridge:

252.

Carr, Byzantine Illumination, 1150-1250: The Study of a

Book Illumination in Syria, Cilicia and Jerusalem of the

Later Twelfth Century,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 57 (1991), pp. 354-356, 365-367; E.B. Garrison, “A Twelfth-Century Bible: A Jerusalem (?) Masterpiece,” Studies in the History of Mediaeval Italian Painting, vol. IIL, Florence, 1958, pp. 300-309.

Figure 3, pp. 334 and 337, Figure 20, p. 339, Figure 24,

and p. 370 and nt. 122. We shall discuss the idea of Byzantine influence on the Tomb of Baldwin V later. Horn, Ichnographiae Monumentorum, p. 70. Ibid., pp. 71-74. Horn reproduced drawings of the tombs of Godrey de Bouillon, Baldwin I, Baldwin II or Fulk, and Baldwin V. The panel measures 33.3 x 23.7 cm. K. Weitzmann et al., The Icon, New York, 1982, pp. 202, 209, idem, “Icon Painting in the Crusader Kingdom,” DOP, 20 (1966), Pp. 54-56; G. and M. Sotiriou, Icones du Mont Sinai, Athens 1958, vol. 1, pp. 182-183, vol. 2, no. 202, attributed here to the thirteenth century. Kihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusal em, Plates XV-XVI. Even though the miters are differe nt, they both still belong to the twelfth century (Kiihne l, Pp. 55-57) and the basic bishop type is similar, even if the drapery and facial figures of Brasius are much earlier than St. Martin on the icon.

K. Weitzmann, “Icon Painting in the Crusader King-

dom,” DOP, XX (1966), p. 55. V. Pace, “Italy and the Holy Land: Import-Export, 2. The Case of Apulia,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Cen-

which the Byzantines continually claimed as part of

493498.

William of Tyre, Book 22, ch. 30, A History, II, p. 504, Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, p. 290, no. 22. ‘Izz ad-Din Ibn al-Athir, The Perfect History, in Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 116. William of Tyre’s History breaks off at the start of Book 23, with events of the summer, 1184. William of Tyre, Book 23, ch. 1, Chronicon, LXIII A, pp. 1061-1064. Edbury and Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East, p. 22, discuss the problematic date of his death and review recent research. The problem is September 29 of what year: 1184, 1185, or 1186? I am inclined to believe that William would have carried his History further had he lived beyond 29 September 1184.

he

Kiihnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jeru salem, Plate XXIV, Figure 38. Ibid., Plates XXIV, Figure 39, XXV, and XX V1.

tury, pp. 245-269.

245. 246. 247.

Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, p- 290, no. 21.

230.

Ibid., Plates XX—XXI, and Buchthal, Minia tire Painting

p- 10, Plate 19a.

255.

Since the 1950s, there have been a number of studies

attributing the codex to south Italy, esp. major published discussions are: Buchthal, Painting, pp. 103-104, A. Danneu-Latanzi, storia della miniatura in Sicilia, Florence, 1966 C. Furlan, “La “Bibbia Bizantina’ della

Sicily. The Miniature L.ieamenti di pp. 42-46; Biblioteca

Guarneriana in S. Daniele del Friuli,” Scritri Storici in

memoria di Paolo Lino Zovatto, ed. A. Tagliaferri, Milan, 1972, pp. 119-123, La Miniatura in Friuli,

ed.

G.C. Menis

and G. Bergamini, p. 60, no. 6; and (in the same cata-

logue), S. Bettini, “La Bibbia “Bizantina’ della Guarner-

iana di San Daniele e l‘Evangelario dell’

Archivio Capi-

tolare di Udine,” pp. 179-185; V. Pace, “Un‘ipotesi per la storia della produzione libraria Italo-Meridionale: La Bibbia ‘Bizantina’ di San Daniele del Friuli,” La

Miniatura Italiana in Eta Romanica e Gotica, Florence, 1979, pp. 131-157; and idem, “La Bibbia “bizantina’ di

San Danieli del Friuli: Le certezze di un enigma (Per la

ria della produzione libraria nell’Occid ente nediterraneo all’alba del ‘200),” Miniatura in Eriuli Cro) di Civilta, Pordenone, 1987, pp. 71-81.

261. 262.

The main contents/decoration of this volume of

bible selections is as follows:

and along with Tripoli, Cyprus must also be considered.

, Danieli del Friuli, Biblioteca Guarneriana, Ms. III:

However, Cyprus can only realistically be considered if the San Danieli Bible can be shown to date later than

Bible selections in Latin: Daniel, 12 Minor Prophet s,

Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesi asti-

cus, Chronicles I and II, Job, Tobias, Judith, Esdras I

and II, Maccabees I and II, Acts, Canonical Epistle s,

\pocalypse, Pauline Epistles.

257 fols. (N.B. foliation varies), 52.5 x 34.5 cm, 44 lines in two columns, 19 large (Color Plates 37-40) and 7 small extant illuminated initials (a number are rubbed

or damaged and many are cut out — not listed below),

and many small illuminated initials. fol. lr 12r 19v 24r 28r

Initial D(anihelum) Initial V(erbum) Initial V(isio) (11.2 x 11.1 cm), Abdias blessing Initial O(mus) (12.8 x 10.5 cm), Naum seated, Plate 10.20a Initial [(n anno) (16.5 x 5.0 cm), Haggai stand-

36r

Initial P(arabole) (19.6 x 7.8 cm), hybrid beast

ing, Plate 10.20b

and clambering figure, Plate 10.20c 50v 53r

Initial O(sculetur) (10.7 x 10.6 cm), Solomon standing Initial D(iligite) (12.2 x 10.9 cm), standing

male figure with scroll

131v Initial A(rphaxat) (10.6 x 10.5 cm), A with checkerboard

and interlace designs, vine-

scroll and animal decorations, Plate 10.20d 156v Initial E(t factum) (11.0 x 12.1 cm), mounted king, Plate 10.20e 72r Initial F(ratribus) (26.5 x 10.5 cm)

Initial I(acobus) (12.5 x 10.5 cm), St. James

standing 202r

Initial P(etrus) (18.7 x 12.6 cm), St. Peter blessing 203v Initial S(ymon et) (12.2 x 10.6 cm), St. Peter

blessing 208v Initial (A)(pocalipsis) (13.4 x 11.5 cm), Christ and St. John, Plate 10.20f 232r Initial (P(aulus) (25.5 x 10.5 cm), Baptism scene 236v Initial (P)(aulus) (27.3 x 11.1 cm), St. Paul

blessing, Plate 10.20g 243v Initial (P)(aulus) (20.8 x 11.25 cm), Illuminated initial with head of Christ on the stem of the letter 256. 257. 258. 259. 260.

257v Garrison, Buchthal, Garrison,

263. 264.

1191, the date Richard I conquered the island. So far most scholarly opinion has favored a date before 1187 for the codex, although V. Pace has entertained a slightly later date. See his work cited above in nt. 255. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, pp- 429-430. On the coinage of Antioch in the late twelfth century, see J. Porteous, “Crusader Coinage with Greek or Latin Inscriptions,” HC, VI, p. 372, and esp., Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades, pp. 32-39, Plates 10-12, and idem, “Three Recent Parcels of Helmet Deniers of Bohemund Ill of Antioch Concealed at about the Time of Saladin’s Conquests,” Coinage in the Latin East, ed. P.W. Edbury and D.M. Metcalf, Oxford, 1980, pp. 137-145. The famous and plentiful “helmet deniers” appear to have little to do with the San Danieli Bible. On the metalwork, see B. Marschak, “Zur Toreutik der Kreuzfahrer,” Metallkunst von der Spiitantike bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter, ed. A. Effenberger, Berlin, 1982, pp. 166-184, esp. 171, Plate 7, 173, Plate 9, 177, Plate 19; idem, Silberschiitze des Orients: Metallkunst des 3.-13. Jahrhunderts

und ihre Kontinuitét, Leipzig, 1986, pp. 115-116, Plates 150-154. The repertory of metalwork ornament is to some extent relevant for comparison with the San Danieli Bible, but there are no direct parallels to be made with the

two major pieces of metalwork cited here. 265. Hunt, “The Syriac Buchanan Bible”, pp. 365-366. On the manuscripts illustrated in Cilicia, see B. Narkiss, “Tluminated Manuscripts in the Kingdom of Cilicia,” Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem, ed. B. Narkiss with M. Stone, Jerusalem, 1979, pp. 41-45, and see the important study by S. Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, 2 vols., Washington, D.C., 1993. 266. Runciman, A History, 2, pp. 443-445. 267. Ernoul, Chronique, pp. 115-119. The arrangements were elaborate in view of the precarious situation. In the event of the death of Baldwin V, Raymond III was confirmed as regent until the Pope and the greatest rulers of western Europe could arbitrate the claims of princesses Sibylla and Isabella for the crown. 268. Ernoul, Chronique, p. 129. 269. E. Horn, Ichnographiae Locorum et Monumentorum Veterum Terrae Sanctae, Rome, 1902, pp. 54-56; idem, Ichnographiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae (1724-1744), pp. 73-75, Figure 10; Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V,”, pp. 3-14; Buschhausen, Die siiditalienische Bauplastik, pp. 154-177, Plates 71-107, and de Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum Crucesignatorum Terrae Sanctae, p. 49ff., esp. 59-61. 270. Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V,” pp. 4, 8, discussed Horn’s measurements and the small size of this tomb as part of the rationale for the reconstruction she proposed.

184r Initial P (partly cut out), Ascension of Christ

200r

See ch. 9. I have already suggested Antioch as a possibility (J. Folda, “Crusader Painting in the 13th Century: The State of the Question,” II medio oriente e l'occidente nell'arte del XIII secolo, ed. H. Belting, Bologna, 1982, pp. 106-107),

explicit epistolas ad Hebreos “A Twelfth-Century Bible,” p- 301. Miniature Painting, p. 104. “A Twelfth-Century Bible,” pp. 302-307.

Ibid., p. 304, Hunt, “The Syriac Buchanan Bible,” p. 355. Hunt, “The Syriac Buchanan Bible,” p- 355.

599

271.

Horn apparently copied the fragmentary text he found on the top slab, on the near edge of the slab in his drawing, above the figures of Christ and the angels. He then wrote out the text recorded by Quaresmius on the top part of the slab. Quaresmius, Historica Theologica, Il, p. 481; Horn, Ichnographiae Monumentorum, p. 74, Figure 10; Baron de Hody, Godefroid de Bouillon et les Rois Latins de Jerusalem, Etude Historique, 2nd ed., Paris and Tournai, 1859, pp. 406-412; de Sandoli, Corpus

emphasized what he saw to be the Byzantine aspects of the decoration on this sarcophagus. Buschhausen, Die siiditalienische Bauplastik, pp. 174-177, also comments on the rather general Byzantine background of

this tomb and discusses its complex composition.

The fact is this sarcophagus has little in common with Byzantine imperial tombs, except for the use of marble and the rectangular shape. Byzantine imperial sarcophagi were made from sumptuous material such as porphyry (up to A.D. 457) or colored marbles , but their decoration was minimal. For information on the imperial tombs in the Church of the Holy Apostles, see

Inscriptionum, pp- 60-61; and Buschhausen, Die siidital-

ienische Bauplastik, pp. 161-162. Jacoby, “The Tomb of

Baldwin V,” p. 4, comments on the inscription, but she

272. ZI3:

does not reconstruct it or interpret it. Our quotation of the text relies most heavily on the readings of de Hody and Buschhausen, with reference to the drawing of Horn. It is interesting that of all the extant inscriptions on the royal tombs, this is the only one to refer to the king, Baldwin V, as born of royal blood. By this, reference is being made to his father’s family as well as that of his mother. Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V,” pp. 4 (prey-bird), 8 (dead young eagle).

282.

One obvious bird to consider is the pelican because of

283.

piercing her breast over her young, but here there are no young and the bird’s head is turned away with the eye closed, not striking itself to draw blood. The eagle is called the king of birds in the bestiary

entry on the caladrius. See White, The Bestiary, p- 116. Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V,” p. 8, attempts to compare this bird with two eagles in a frontal pose with wings displayed on the Latrun capitals, illus-

276.

trated in Buschhausen, Die siiditalienische Bauplastik, Plate 3. No specific features of the frontal eagles correspond closely enough to the bird under discussion to warrant identifying it also as an eagle. White, The Bestiary, p. 115. The Passage makes clear that the caladrius looks away if the illness is fatal, but “if on the other hand it is not a mortal illness, the Caladrius faces the patient.” It takes the whole sickne ss on itself, then flies up toward the sun and disper ses the sickness in the air, thus the patient is cured (pp. 115-116).

277. 278. 279.

have one register of decoration, usually foliate, geo-

On the caladrius (charadrius), see G.C. Druce, “The

the act of turning her head back on her own body,

275.

Mango and I. Sevcenko, DOP, 16 (1962), pp. 1-63, and

A.A. Vasiliev, “Imperial Porphyry Sarcophagi in Constantinople,” DOP, 4 (1948), pp. 1-26, Plates 6-14. For contemporary Byzantine tombs otherwise, see, O. Feld, “Mittelbyzantinische Sarkophage,” Rémische Quartalschrift, 65 (1970), pp. 158-184. Generally they

Caladrius and its Legend,” Archaeological Journal, LXIX (1913), pp. 381-416; T.H. White, The Bestiary, A Book of Beasts, New York, 1960, pp. 115-116; Physiologus, trans. MJ. Curley, Austin, 1979, pp. 7-9, 71; F. McCulloch, Mediaeval Latin and French Bestiaries, rev. ed., Chapel Hill, 1962, pp. 99-101; and X. Muratova, The Medieval

Bestiary, Moscow, 1984, p- 161.

274.

P. Grierson, “The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042),” with an additional note by C.

Horn, Ichnographiae Monumentorum, p- 73, Figure 9, and see ch. 6, nt. 206. See ch. 3, nts. 43 and 48. Mayer, “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus,” p. 184. The early Christian features have been little discus sed. Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, I, pp. 166-167,

\—

280.

281.

284,

285.

metric, and signed with the cross, but rarely do they have figural decoration. This places the Tomb of Baldwin V in bold relief by contrast. See, e.g., the sarcophagus of Adelphia, or the back of the City Gates Sarcophagus, E. Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture, New York, 1964, Figures 156, 159.

See e.g., various sarcophagi from Ravenna or southern France, Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture, Figures 144, 146. See, e.g., the sarcophagus of Constantina, Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture, Figure 165. See, e.g., the numerous sarcophagi with clipeus portraits, Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture, Figures 155, 167. Sar-

cophagi with a portrait of the deceased below the image of Christ on the central axis of the front or back are not, however, known to me. Jacoby, “The Workshop of the Temple Area,” pp. 368-370, Figures 89-90. Many of the specific examples she cites as Byzantine comparanda seems to be later than the Tomb of Baldwin V, which raises questions of Crusader influence on the Byzantine work. Jacoby, “The Workshop of the Temple Area,” pp. 371-372, Figures 91, 92. She identified these birds as

eagles or peacocks, but they are manifestly different in

their iconography and/or the manner in which they

are posed in these niches than the birds in the conchoid niches of the Tomb of Baldwin V.

Martin Harrison does not specify any funereal significance for the conchoid niches at St. Polyeuktos. See M. Harrison, A Temple for Byzantium, London, 1989, pp:

81, 84, 109, Figures 31, 34, 86-88, 96, 97, 161, and 136. Jacoby’s (“The Workshop of the Temple Area,” pp. 374-375) attempt to generalize the Byzantine impact on the Tomb of Baldwin V should be resisted, moreover, because the Byzantine imperial symbolism she proposes was most actively adopted by earlier kings, Baldwin III and Amaury I. Furthermore, even though there had been a number of Crusader embassies and

600

visits to Constantinople in the 1160s and 1170s, as we

have seen, which would have given the Crusaders opportunities to view the imperial tombs in the

295.

London, 1971, p. 136, first clearly voiced this important interpretation. Another interested party would have

Church of the Holy Apostles and elsewhere, we have

vidence that those imperial Byzantine tombs looked like that of Baldwin V. Jacoby (“The Workshop of the Temple Area,” p- 373) discussed the distinctive interlaced columns and their background in Western and Byzantine representations F joined columns. However, the Byzantine depictions of columns linked by a square knot is as distinctive as no

286.

been William III of Montferrat, grandfather of Baldwin

e

296.

by Abbot Daniel, of which nothing can be seen today; second, major renovations were done shortly before 1187, of which some important features have been

associate the origins of this motif to Byzantine sources should be tempered by the clear understanding that

identified by Hugh Plommer; third, some

they are quite separate developments, each with its own creative contribution independent of the other. What her comparison of the tomb facade with the famous Ascension miniature in the Vatican manuscript of the Homilies of Jacobus Kokkinobaphos seems to indicate is, not particularly their closeness and certainly not any model-copy relationship, but the independent use of seemingly similar decorative motifs in a Levantine context. On the Byzantine knotted columns, see loli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, “The Byzantine Knotted Column,” Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, ed. S. Vryonis, Jr., Malibu, 1985, pp. 95-103. On the widespread tradition of the “Heracles Knot” in classical antiquity, see A. Nicgorski, The Iconography of the Herakles Knot, Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1995. White, The Bestiary, p. 116. Theodorich, ch. 17, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 294. The paired, decorated columns were associated with the Templar project for which the atelier was

and 1244, but specific identification is needed for this work, and later fourteenth-century work was done when the Franciscans were eventually given responsibility for the site after the Crusaders were gone. See, on the issue of the late-twelfth-century work, H. Plommer, “The Cenacle on Mount Sion,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, pp. 139-166. Earlier scholars have tended to date this structure later, to the time of Frederick II in Jerusalem at the earliest — see Enlart, Les

Monuments des Croisés, Il, pp. 249-262, and Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, Il, pp. 421-440. More recently, Langé, Architettura delle Crociate in Palestina, Como, 1965, pp. 169-174, has been the only other person to date the coenaculum prior to 1187. Plommer, unlike Langé, advances a full argument for his hypothesis. See also H.E. Mayer, “Aus der Geschichte des Sionsstiftes,” Bistiimer, Kloster, und Stifte im Kénigreich Jerusalem, Stuttgart, 1977, pp. 230-242, and Boase, “Ecclesiastical

tations iconographically in the Romanesque art of Elements in

Romanesque Art,” The Temple of Solomon, Archaeological Fact and Medieval Tradition in Christian, Islamic and Jewish Art, ed. J. Gutmann, Missoula, Montana,

1976, pp. 50-66. 290.

Jacoby, “The Workshop of the Temple Area,” pp.

291. 292.

325-393. Jacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V,” pp. 3-14. Jacoby’s dating should be upheld as correct and

293.

85, 129-130, 133, 136, 151, 155, 168-170) speculation that the workshop could not have done the work in so short a time and may have been active 1229 and later, must be discarded. R.C. Smail, “The Predicaments of Guy de Lusignan,

Buschhausen’s (Die siiditalienische Bauplastik, e.g., pp-

302.

1183-1187,” Outremer, ed. B.Z. Kedar et al., pp. 159-176, comments on modern views of Guy and Raymond III. 294.

305.

1982, pp. 195-198.

601

Art,” HC, IV, pp. 95-96. Today the cenacle is an independent structure with the upper room located over the Tomb of King David. See, e.g., the gospel of St. Luke, 22:12. Acts of the Apostles 1: 13-14. It was also identified as the house of the apostles, and, as the property of St. John the Evangelist, the domicile of the Virgin Mary after the death of Jesus. Daniel the Abbot, chs. 40-41, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 141-142. On the mosaic mentioned by Daniel, Weitzmann says it may have been “a replacement for, or a restoration of, an older one.” K. Weitzmann, “Loca Sancta and the Representational Arts of Palestine,” DOP, 28 (1974), p. 45. Johannes Phocas, 14. 8-11, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 323-324. Enlart, Les Monuments des Croisés, Il, p. 252, located the inscription on the south wall over the portal of the narthex. John of Wiirzburg, ch. 9, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 257. For the Latin, see de Sandoli, Corpus Inscriptionum, p. 164, no. 219.

Ernoul, Chronique, pp. 129-136; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Il, pp. 446449; B.Z. Kedar “The Patriarch Eraclius,” Outremer, ed. B.Z. Kedar, et al., Jerusalem,

further

minor renovations were possibly done between 1229

set up. Such columns also carried Solomonic connothe West. See W. Cahn, “Solomonic

V. So far there is, however, no evidence to link him with this commission. The Coenaculum possesses a complex building history,

which for our purposes includes the following stages: first, some renovations were possibly done in the very early twelfth-century just prior to when it was visited

these Crusader interlaced columns, and her attempt to

287. 288. 289.

TS.R. Boase, Kingdoms and Strongholds of the Crusades,

It is difficult to assess how much the present “Gothic look” of the Cenacle is due to the late-twelfth-century renovations, as compared to later developments.

306.

307.

Plommer has argued that the determining work was

M.C. Lyons, “Saladin’s Hattin Letter,”

done just prior to 1187, and that is the view taken here.

tin, pp. 208-212. Ernoul, Chronique, p. 170; Frolow, La Reliaie de Ia Vraie Croix, pp. 347-349, no. 377. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, PP. 459-460, and Ernoul, Chronique, pp. 173-174.

Plummer, “The Cenacle on Mount Sion,” p. 154, Plate 6.4b, seconded by P. Fergusson, “The Refectory at Easby Abbey: Form and Iconography,” AB, LXXI (1989), p. 346. Plommer, “The Cenacle on Mount Sion,” pp. 154, Plate

324. 325. 326.

6.4a, 156, Plate 6.6, and possibly also the north wall

308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313.

314. 315. 316.

327.

Ibid., pp. 139-140, 152, Plate 6.2. Ibid., pp. 140, 146-147, nt. 5; Vincent and Abel,

329.

Mediaeval Architecture’,” JWCI, 5 (1942), pp. 1-33. Fer-

330.

EHR, XCVII (1982), pp. 721-739. See ch. 9. For example, he visited the monasteries of St. Saba and

others in the Judean wilderness. See Johannes Phocas,

16.8ff., chs. 17-25, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 327-331. 317. For example, at Nazareth he mentions only the icon of the Annunciation at the entry to the shrine, ignoring the program of figural sculpture on the church. See Johannes Phocas, 10, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, pp. 320. 318. For example, he attributed to Manuel the gift of plating the entire top of the holy sepulchre stone shelf with gold. See, Johannes Phocas, 14.18, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 324. 319. At Bethlehem, he mentions the emperor’s portrait having been set up in several locations in gratitude for his largesse, by the Latin bishop. See Johannes Phocas, 27.6, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 333. 320. See, for this section, Ernoul, Chronique, ch. XII, pp. 140-154; Mayer, The Crusades, pp. 133-134; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 2, pp. 449-457; M.W. Baldwi n, “The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174-1189,” HC, Us

321.

pp. 605-612; and Prawer, Histoire du Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, vol. I, pp. 637-649. In addition to the sources and studies menti oned

above, nt. 320, see, on the Battle of Hattin , B. Kedar,

torians of the Crusades, p. 164. Ibn al-Athir, The Perfect History, in Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 144. Imad ad-Din, The Conquest of the Holy C ity, in Arab His-

torians of the Crusades, p. 164. Ibn al-Athir, The Perfect History, in Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 145. Ibn al-Athir, The Perfect History, in Arab Historians of the

Crusades, p. 144. 332.

Imad ad-Din, The Conquest of the Holy City, in Arab His-

torians of the Crusades, p. 163.

333. 334.

Ibid., pp. 174-175. G. Kithnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdo m of

Jerusalem, Berlin, 1988, p. 102, Plate XXXI, Figure 52. In

335.

1192 a Moslem named ar’Rabi b. Umar al Marri wrote his name and date in Arabic on the image of St. Fusca in the nave of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Jacoby, review of Buschhausen, Die siiditalienische Bauplastik, in ZfiirK, XLVI (1984), pp. 400-403; Pace, “Sculpture italienne en Terre Sainte ou sculpture des croisés en Italie? A propos d’un livre recent,” CCM,

XXVII (1984), Pp- 253-257; and Buschhausen, Die siidi-

talienische Bauplastik, pp. 295-402.

336.

J. Folda et al., “Crusader Frescoes at Crac des Chevaliers and Margab Castle,” DOP, 36 (1982), pp. 196-210.

Chapter 11

1.

There were also probably glass blowers, pottery and

tile makers, specialists in marble floors, and textile

makers, among others. Most of what we know about

such activities in the Latin East is dated teenth century. See the discussion on

in the thirfinds of pottery,

and stone objects by R.D. Pringle in the

Gal; Prawer, Histoire du Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, I,

323.

331.

article by Z. Gal, “Saladin’s Dome of Victory at the Horns of Hattin,” The Horns of Hattin, pp. 213-215, Imad ad-Din, The Conquest of the Hol y City, in Arab His-

glass, metalwork, objects of bone, terracatte and wood,

ed., The Horns of Hattin, Jerusalem, 1992, esp. articles by B.Z. Kedar, C.P. Melville and M.C. Lyons, and Z.

322.

328.

Jérusalem, Il, p. 430, Figure 107, and Plate XLIV. Fergusson, “The Refectory at Easby Abbey,” p. 347. R. Krautheimer, “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of gusson, “The Refectory at Easby Abbey,” p. 342, nt. 38, updates this approach with some more recent and very fruitful work by R. Ousterhout and P. Crossley. HLE. Mayer, “Henry II of England and the Holy Land,”

On the Dome of Victory, see the comments of Kedar,

“The Battle of Hattin Revisited,” pp. 206-207, and the

foliated capitals, p. 161, Plates 6.11a and b. Ibid., p. 158, Plate 6.8b. Ibid., p. 157, Plate 6.7a.

TI e Horns of Hat-

pp. 641-680, and recent bibliography cited by Mayer, The Crusades, p. 303, nt. 66. See Mayer, “Henry II of England and the Holy Land,” EHR, XCVII (1982), pp. 721-739, on possible reasons why Gerard was so persuasive in his advice to the king. See B.Z. Kedar, “The Battle of Hattin Revisi ted,” The Horns of Hattin, pp. 190-207, and C.P. Melvil le and

the excavations in The Red Tower, London,

publication of 1986, pp-

133-174. On the glass, see, e.g., J. Philippe, “L’Orient chrétien et des reliquaires médiévaux en cristal de roche et en verre conservés en Belgique,” Bulletin de l'Institut archéologique litgeois, LXXXVI (1974), pp. 245-289; idem, Le Monde Byzantin dans Ihistoire de la Verrerie, Ve — XVIe siécles, Bologna, 1970, p. 222, no. 275; and D.H.

Harden et al., Masterpieces of Glass, London, 1968, pP: 151-152, all with useful bibliography.

602

ee Cn the pottery, see, e.g., the many publications of R.D. Pringle in the 1980s, cited in The Red Tower, p. 199, including idem, “The Medieval Pottery of Palestine and Transjordan (A.D. 636-1500): An Introduction,

7.

major powers in the Latin Kingdom in the second half of the twelfth century, and although they both sponsored major fortifications, ecclesiastical structures, and figural

Gazetteer and Bibliography,” Medieval Ceramics, 5 (1981), pp. 45-60, and idem, “Pottery as Evidence for

Trade in the Crusader States,” I Comuni Italiani nel

Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. G. Airaldi and B. Kedar, Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, 48, Genoa,

1986, pp. 449-475 and plates. The state of the question has been gathered together in a preliminary report on the topic by B. Porée, Un Aspect de la Culture Matérielle

des Croisades: Introduction a l’Etude de la Céramique, XI-XIlléme siécles, D.E.A. d’archéologie médiévale, Université de Paris, I, Paris, 1991, esp. pp. 75-219 (ch. 3). See also the recent article by A.J. Boas, “The Import

of Western

Ceramics

to the Latin Kingdom of

Jerusalem,” IEJ, 44 (1944), pp. 102-122. Among older publications, see J.D. Frierman, Medieval Ceramics: VI to XIII Centuries, Los Angeles,

1975, pp. 45-53; A. Lane, “Medieval Finds at Al Mina in North Syria,” Archaeologia, LXXXVII

It is also not possible to speak of a Hospitaler or a Templar art or architecture. Although these two orders became

(1938), pp-

19-78; and C.N. Johns, “Medieval Slip-Ware from Pilgrims’ Castle, ~Atlit (1930-1),” QDAP 3 (1934), pp. 137-144, Plates XLIX-LVIL I would like to thank my colleagues in American art, Arthur S. Marks, for providing me with a basic synopsis from which the colonial characteristics have been itemized below, and Linda Docherty, for discussing these issues with me. For colonial American art, see, e.g., the following: J. Wilmerding, American Art, Harmondsworth, 1976, pp.

10.

3-44; D.P. Handlin, American Architecture, London,

1985, pp. 9-38; and M.W. Brown, American Art to 1900, New York, 1977, pp. 1-35. For the Crusaders, see “The Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem — The First European Colonial Society?: A Symposium,” in The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem, 1992, pp. 341-366; J. Prawer, “The Roots of

Medieval Colonialism,” in The Meeting of Two Worlds, eds. V. Goss and C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo, 1986, pp.

23-38; idem, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European

Colonialism in the Middle Ages, London, 1972, pp. 469-533 (ch. XVIII); idem, “Colonization Activities in

the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, XXIX (1951), pp. 1063-1118; C.N. Johns,

and nonfigural art in this period, both in Jerusalem and elsewhere, their patronage was large in scale for diverse works in many locations that did not lend themselves to special artistic characteristics, except in the case of the Templar atelier on the Haram in Jerusalem. We have noted the debate on this issue in the Introduction and chapter 1. I have addressed this debate elsewhere as well. See my paper, “What is Crusader Art?,” originally delivered as a plenary address at the Third International Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. The conference took place at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, in the summer of 1991. I would like to emphasize that whereas the debate was initiated by and has focused on challenges to “Crusader Art” of the thirteenth century, it is essential to consider the issue in light of twelfth-century developments out of which the later, more controversial art emerges. M. de Vogiié, “La Citerne de Ramleh et le tracé des arcs brisés,: Mémoires de l'Institut National de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 39 (1914), pp. 163-180. Indeed there are a number of issues that require much further study, of which we mention a few here. First, we need a full corpus of Crusader art critically identified and published. Second, the range and depth of inscriptions recorded by the various pilgrims on the Crusader monuments invites a full explication of the relationship of text and image in the Crusader East and its special importance for these works. Third, we need to investigate more fully the relationship of Crusader high art to the more popular art of the Crusader States. Fourth, it is evident that Melisende played an important role as patron of the arts in the Latin Kingdom. We need to inquire into the role other women played as patrons and to further our understanding of how women’s spirituality played a pivotal role in integrating the devotions and artistic goals of the Latin East with those of the Orthodox East. Finally, we need to investigate the Christian multicultural experience in the Levant in this period, of which the Crusaders and Crusader art, were essential and distinctive components.

‘The Attempt to Colonize Palestine and Syria in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Journal of the Royal

11.

Central Asian Society, XXI (1934), pp. 288-300; and, of

course, see also L.-A. Hunt, “Art and Colonialism: The Mosaics of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (1169) and the Problem of ‘Crusader’ Art,” DOP, 45

(1991), pp. 69-85.

In considering the history of colonial America, I have referred to Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, New York, 1965, pp- 3-223. Fulcher of Chartres, Book III, ch. 37, History, p. 271.

16.

See nt. 1. See R.D. Pringle, “The planning of some pilgrimage churches in Crusader Palestine,” World Archaeology, 18 (1987), pp. 341-342, 358. John of Wiirzburg, ch. 27, Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum, II, p. 290. John of Wiirzburg, ch. 27, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, p. 273. William of Tyre, Prologue, Chronicon, LXIIL, p. 101. William of Tyre, Prologue, A History, 1, p. 58, with revisions in the translation.

See ch. 5, nt. 19.

603

Gazetteer

vol. IV, Madison and London, 1969 and 1977 respectively. See also the pithy and concise geographical discussion by H.E. Mayer, The Crusades, trans. J. Gillingham, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1988, pp. 58-59, for an introduction to the dramatic landscape of the region.

This gazetteer is designed to assist the reader with the identification and location of Near Eastern sites in the twelfth century. In principle all sites from the Crusader East mentioned in the text are listed here with a grid reference to the locator maps: Syria-Palestine North (Map 8, p. 606) and South (Map 9, p. 607), or Crusader Jerusalem in the twelfth century (Map 7, p. 411). Sites

This gazetteer has been formulated with the aid of “The Gazetteer and Note on Maps” prepared by H.W. Hazard for vol. I of A History of the Crusades. The information in each map has been derived from several sources, but in each case the cartographer relied ona base map or maps, as follows: For Map 1, P. Lesourd and J.M. Ramiz, On the Path of the Crusaders, Jerusalem, 1969, p. 58. Maps 2-6, 8, and 9, the University of Wisconsin Cartographic Laboratory maps prepared under the direction of H.W. Hazard in K.M. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades, Madison, vol. I, Milwaukee, and London, 1969, pp. 305, 306; opp. pp. 346, 347; opp. pp. 426, 427; opp. pp. 506, 507; and opp. p. 602.

include city, town, or village names; monuments such

as monasteries and castles clearly not part of larger towns; and some major topographical landmarks. Site names are given in forms familiar to English-speaking readers, but variable usage and differing spellings of transliterated names may sometimes necessitate searching for alternatives in the list. A few important cross references and selected equivalents are indicated. Many of the sites listed may be found in the series of historical maps of the Crusader States during the twelfth century (Maps 1-6). However, the primary purpose of Map 1 (p. 22) is to chart the main routes of the First Crusade, and of Maps 2-6 (pp. 47, 77, 120, 176, 332 respectively) to indicate the changing configurations of the various Crusader States. Certain sites from Europe are identified by country but are not illustrated with

Map 7, J. Prawer, “Jerusalem in Crusader Days,” Jerusalem Revealed, ed. and trans. R. Grafman, Jerusalem, 1975, p. 105; M. Benveniste, The Crusaders

ma ps.

in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, 1970, p. 50; and T.S.R. Boase, Castles and Churches of the Crusading Kingdom, London, 1967, p. 23. I would like to thank my cartographer, Patricia Neumann, for her excellent work in preparing the maps published here.

Readers seeking additional site locations are reminded of the standard current and historical atlases for the Near East. For the Crusades see specifically The Atlas of the Crusades, ed. J. Riley-Smith, London, 1991, and the maps and gazetteer by H.W. Hazard in A History of the Crusades, ed. K.M. Setton, vol. I (2nd ed.) and

605

| Gulf of

Alexandretta Alexandretta

terranean i Med

Ee Ks

4

Ks

36°

e

——EEE

Za | MAP 9 OF TIME SYRIA-PALESTINE AT THE (SOUTH) 1187 1098 THE CRUSADES:

2

‘

L2

Li

! 2

a5

33°

fs

~ 32°

5 fs

me 31°

Ks

Ks

34°

ei

45°

607

-

a

Each entry contains the place name; a grid reference to the locator maps presented in this book; equivalent names, if any; comments on the location where appropriate; and the number of the map in this text on which

the site may be found. A Abu

Ghosh

(L1f4)

= Castellum

Emmaus,

Emmaus,

Fontenoid, Qaryat al ‘Inab (9)

Acre (L1£3) = St. Jean d’Acre, Akka, Akko (9) Afula (L1£3) = al Fulah, La Feve (9) Ain Karem (L1f4) (9)

Aintab (L3e3) = Gaziantep (8) Akaba, Gulf of (K5/L1g1) = Gulf of Ailah (1-6) Albara (L2e5) = Bara (8)

Aleppo (L3e4) = Haleb (8) Alexandretta (L2e4) = Iskanderun (8) Amalfi (Italy) Amida (M1e3) = Diyarbakir (Turkey) Amwas (K5f4) = Emmaus (9) Anatolia (Turkey) (K/Le) Anazarba (L1e3) = Anavarza (8) Angers (France)

Antioch (L2e4) = Antiochia, Antakya (8) Apamea (L2e5) = Qalat al Mudig (8) Apulia (Italy) Aradus (L1f1) = Arwad, Ruad (8) Ariha (L1f4) = Jericho (9) al Arish (K4f4) (9) Argah (L2f1) (8) Arsuf (K5f3) = Arsur (9) Arta (Greece) Arwad (L1f1) = Aradus, Ruad (8) Ascalon (K5f4) (9) Ashdod (K5f4) (9) Athlit (K5f3) = Atlit, Chateau Pélerin (9) Ayalon, Valley of (K5f4), see: Castellum Arnaldi (9) Azaz (L3e4) (8) B Baalbek (L2f1) (8) Baghras (L2e4) = Gastun (8)

Bahdeidat (L1f1) (8) Baisan (L1f3) = Beisan, Beit Shean (9)

Banyas (L1f2) = Baniyas, Caesarea Philippi (9) Bara (L2e5) = Albara (8) Barin (L2f1) = Montferrand (8) Barletta (Italy)

Beaufort (L12) = Belfort, Qalat ash Shagif (9) Beirut (L1f2) = Berytus, Beyrouth (8)

Beit Govrin (K5f4) = Beit Jibrin, Beth Gibelin (9) Beit Nuba (L1f4), immediately N of Yalu, NE of Amwas Beit Shean (L1f3) = Baisan, Beisan (9) Belfort (L1f2) = Beaufort (9) Belmont Monastery (L1f1) (8) Belvoir (L1f3) = Kaukab al Hawa (9)

Bethany (L1f4) = al Azariya (9) Beth Gibelin (K5f4) = Beit Govrin, Beit Jibrin (9) Bethlehem (L1f4) (9) Bethphage (L1f4) = Betfage (9) Bir al Annezieh at Ramla (K5f4) (9) al Bira (L1f4) = Magna Mahomeria (9)

al Bira (L3e4) = Birejik (Turkey) (8) Blanche Garde (K5f4) = Tel as Safiyah (9) La Bocquée (L2f1) = Bugaiah, valley immediately E and SE of

Crac des Chevaliers (8) Bourzey (L2e5) (8)

Brindisi (Italy)

Buqaiah, Valley of (L2f1) = La Bocquée, valley immediately E and SE of Crac des Chevaliers (8) Burj al Ahmar (K5f3) = Red Tower (9)

Byblos (L1f1) = Gibelet, Jubail (8) Cc Caesarea (K5f3) = Caesarea Maritima (9)

Caesarea Philippi (L1f2) = Banyas, Baniyas (9) Cairo (Egypt) Cana (L1f3) = Kafr Kanna, Casal Robert, 6.5 km N of Nazareth Carboeiro, Abbey of (Spain)

Castellum Arnaldi (K5f4) = Castle Arnold, adjacent to Yalu, NE of Amwas Castellum Emmaus (L1f4) = Abu Ghosh, Fontenoid, Qaryat al ‘Inab (9) Chastel Blanc (L2f1) = Burj Safitha (8) Chastel Neuf (L1f2) = Hunin (9) Chastel Rouge (L2e5) = Rugia (8) Chastel Rouge (L2f1) = Yahmur (8) Chastellet at Jacob’s Ford (L1£3) (9) Chateau Pélerin (K5f3) = Athlit (9) Choziba (L14), Greek Orthodox monastery in the Wadi Qelt ENE of Jerusalem near Jericho Cilician Gates (L2E3), pass through Taurus Mountains NE of Tarsus (1) Clermont (France)

Compostela (Spain) = Santiago da Compostela Constantinople (Byzantium) Crac des Chevaliers (L2f1) = Krak des Chevaliers, Hisn al Akrad (8) Cresson, Fountain of (L1£3) (9) Cursat (L2e4) = Qusair (8)

D

Damietta (Egypt) Damascus (L2f2) (9) Danith (L2e5) (8) Daron (K5f4) = Darum (9) Dead Sea (L1f4) (9) Denkendorf (Germany) Diyarbakir (Turkey) (M1e3) = Amida Dog River (L12), immediately N of Beirut (9)

Dome of Victory at Hattin (L1f3) = Qubbat al Nasr (9) Dorylaeur

Iznik (Turkey) = Nicaea

E Edessa (L4¢3) = Urfa (8) Emesa (L2f1) = Homs (8)

us Emma Amwas,

Iron Bridge (L2e4) = Jisr al Hadid (8) Iskanderun (L2e4) = Alexandretta (8)

(Jur key)

f4)

= Abu Ghosh/Qaryat al ‘Inab, or

or(K5/L1 al Qubeiba (9)

J Jabal at Tur (L1£4) = Mount of Olives E of Jerusalem (7) Jabal Musa (K4g2) = Mt. Sinai in Sinai Peninsula SW of

Akaba (1) Jabala (L1e5) (8) Jacob’s Ford (L1f3), = Jisr Banat Yaqub, at Chastellet (9) Jacob’s Well (L1f3), immediately ESE of Nablus (9)

F Forbelet (L1£3) (9) La Féve (9) al Fulah (L13) = Afula,

Fustat (Egypt)

Jaffa (K5£3) = Joppa (9)

Jarash (L1f3) = Gerasa (9) Jaulan (L1f3) = Golan, district NE of Lake Tiberias (9)

Jehoshaphat, Valley of, immediately E of Jerusalem (L1f4) = Kidron Valley, site of Gethsemane (7)

G Galilee (L1£3) (9)

Galilee, Lake (L1f3) = Lake Tiberias (9)

Gastun (L2e4) = Baghras (8) Gaza (K5f4) = Gadres (9)

Gaziantep (L3e3) = Aintab (8) Gethsemane (L1f4), in Kidron Valley immediately E of Jerusalem (7) Gezer (K5f4) = Mont Gisard, hill between Ramla and Latrun Gibelet (L1f1) = Byblos, Jubail (8) Golan (L1f3) = Jaulan, district NE of Lake Tiberias (9)

Grande Berrie (K5/L1f4/f5), Negev Desert in region of Beersheva and south (9)

H

Haifa (K5f3) = Caiffa (9) Haleb (L3e4) = Aleppo (8) Hama (L2e5) (8) Haram al Sharif in Jerusalem (L1f4) (7) = the Noble Sanctuary, precinct of the Mosque al Aqsa (Templum Salomonis)

Jericho (L1f4) = Ariha (9) Jerusalem (L1f4) = al Quds, Hierosolyma (1-6, 7, 9)

Jezreel Valley (L1£3), valley plain E of Haifa Jordan River (L1f2/f3/f4) (9) Judaea (L1f4) (9) Judaire, Pont de (L1£3) (9)

K Kaisheim (Germany) Kerak (L1f4) = Krak of Moab, Petra of the Desert (9) Khirbet al Mafjar, adjacent to Jericho (L1f4) (9) Kharput (L5e2), fortress NE of Edessa Kidron Valley (L1f4) = Valley of Jehoshaphat (7) Krak des Chevaliers (L2f1) = Crac des Chevaliers (8) Krak de Montréal (L1f5) = Shaubak (3-6) Krak of Moab (L1f4) = Kerak (9)

E

La Bocquée (L2f1) = Bugaiah Valley, immediately E and SE of

and the Dome of the Rock (Templum Domini) Harim (1.2e4) = Harenc (8) Harran (L5e4)

Crac des Chevaliers (8) La Feve (L1f3) = al Fulah, Afula (9) Latrun (K5f4) (9)

Hattin, Horns of (L1f3) (9) Hauran (L.2£2/f3), region south of Damascus (9) Hebron (L.1f4) (9)

Lattakieh (L1e5) = Laodicea (8) Lebanon, Mount (L2f1) = Jabal Lubnan (8) Litani River (L1f2) = Leontes River (9)

Heraclea (Turkey) Hermon, Mount (L1f2) (9)

Hisn al Akrad (L2f1) = Crac des Chevaliers, Krak des Chevaliers (8)

Lusignan (France) Lydda (K5f4) = Lod (9)

Homs (1.2f1) = Emesa (8)

M

Hulah, Lake (L1£2) (9)

Maarrat an Numan (L2e5) (8) Machpelah, Grotto of, at Hebron (L1f4) (9) Magna Mahomeria (L1f4) = al Bira (9)

Hromkla (L3e3) = Hromgla, Qalat ar Rum (8)

Hunin (L1f2) = Chastel Neuf (9)

Mamilla, cemetery immediately W of Jerusalem (L1f4) I Ibelin (K5f4) = Yavne, Yabna (9)

lle de Graye (K5/L1g1) = al Qureiya, Island S of Akab a

Mamistra (Lle4) = Mopsuestia (8) Mamre, Oak of, near Hebron (L1f4) (9) Maraclea (L1e5) (8)

Marash (L2e3) (8)

Mardin (Turkey) (M1e3) Margat (L1e5) = al Marqab (8) Marj Ayun (L1f2), plain between Litani and Upper Jordan rivers (8) Marmusa al Habashi near Nebek (Syria) (L2f1) (8) al Marqab (L1e5) = Margat (8) Mar Saba (L1f4), Greek Orthodox monastery in Judaean wilderness SE of Jerusalem (9) Masyaf (L2e5) (8) Melitene (L4e2) = Malatya (Turkey) Mirabel (K5f3) Castle 24 km due N of Lydda Monastery of the True Cross, W of Jerusalem (L1f4) Mons Peregrinus, overlooking Tripoli (L1f1) = Qalat Sandjil

(9) Montferrand (L2f1) = Barin (8) Montfort (L1£2) = Qalat Qurain (9) Mont Gisard (K5f4) = Gezer, hill between Ramla and Latrun Montjoie (L1f4) = Nabi Samwil (9)

Montréal (L1f5) = Krak de Montréal, Shaubak (3-6) Mosul (Turkey) (M4e4) Mt. Hermon (L1f2) (9) Mt. Lebanon (L2f1) (8)

Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt.

Moriah, Jerusalem (L1f4), eastern elevation of city of Olives, E of Jerusalem (L1f4) (7) Silpius, at Antioch (L2e4) (8) Sinai (K4g2), in Sinai Peninsula SW of Akaba (1) Sion, Jerusalem (L1f4) (7) Tabor (L1f3) 10 km E of Nazareth (9)

Qalat Jabar (L4e5) (8) Qalat Nimrud (L1f2) = Qalat al Subeibah/Subaibah (9)

Qalat Qurain (L1f2) = Montfort (9) Qalat Sandjil, above Tripoli (L1f1) = Mons Peregrinus (8) Qalat Seman (L2e4) (8) Qalat al Subeibeh (L1f2) = Qalat Nimrud, Subaibah (9)

Qara (Syria) (L2f1) 17 km N of Nebek (8) Qaryat al ‘Inab (L1f4) = Abu Ghosh, Emmaus (9) Qinnasrin (L2e5) (8) al Qubaibah (L1f4) = Parva Mahomeria, Emmaus (9) Qubbat al Mirraj, on the Haram in Jerusalem, Crusader bap-

tistery for the Templum Domini (L1f4) (7)

Qubbat al Nasr, at Hattin (L1f3), Dome of V.ictory (9) al Quds (L1f4) = Jerusalem (1-6, 7, 9) al Qureiya (K5/L1g1) = Ile de Graye, island S of Akaba (1)

Qusair (L2e4) = Cursat (8) R

Rafaniyah (L2f1) (8) Ramla (K5f4) (9)

Raqga (L5e5) 48 km E of Qalat Jabar on the Euphrates Red Sea (Lgh) Red Tower (K5/L1£3) = Burj al Ahmar (9) Resafa (L5e5) 28 km S of Euphrates between Qalat Jabar and

Raqqa (8)

Rhodes (Turkey) (Je) Ruad (L1f1) = Aradus, Arwad (8)

Rugia (L2e5) = Chastel Rouge (8) N

Nabi Samwil (L1f4) = Neby Samwil, Montjoie (9) Nablus (L1f3) (9) Nahr al Aswad (L2e4) = Black River (8)

Nazareth (L1f3) (9) Nebek (Syria) (L2f1) near Marmusa al Habashi (8) Neby Samwil (L1f4) = Montjoie (9)

Negev (K5/L1f4/f5) = Grande Berrie, desert in region of Beersheva and south (9) Nicaea (Turkey)

Noblac (France)

Oo Orontes River (L2e4/e5/f1) (8) Oultrejourdain = TransJordan, region E of the Jordan River (9)

IY Parva Mahomeria (L1f4) = al Qubaibah, Qubeiba (9) Petra (Jordan) (L1f5) 34 km SSW of Montréal (Shaubak) Petra of the Desert (L1f4) = Kerak (9) Plaimpied (France) Pont de Judaire (L1£3) (9) Pont de Sennabra (L1f3) (9)

Q Qalat al Mudig (L2e5) = Apamea (8)

S Safed (L1f3) (9) Saffuriyah (L1F3) = Sephoris (9) Sephoris (L1f3) = Saffuriyah (9) Safitha (L2f1) = Chastel Blanc (8) Sahyun (L2e5) = Saone Saidnaya, 25 km N of Damascus (L2f2) (9)

St. Euthymius (L14) = Khan al Ahmar (9) St. Jean d’Acre (L1f3) = Acre, Akko (9) St. Saba (L1f4) = Mar Saba (9) St. Simeon (L1e4) (8) St. Theoctistus (L1f4) (9) Samaria (L1f3) (9) Saone (L2e5) = Sahyun (8) Scythopolis (L1f3) = Beit Shean, Baisan (9) Sebaste (L1£3) = Sebastia (9) Sebastia (L1f3) = Sebaste (9) Sennabra, Pont de (L1£3) (9) Sharon, Plain of (K5/L1£3), site of the Red Tower (9)

Shaubak (L1f5) = Krak de Montréal (3-6) Shaizar (L2e5) = Larissa (8)

Shechem, immediately E of Nablus (L1£3) (9) Sidon (L1f2) = Saida, Sagitta (9) Silpius, Mt., at Antioch (L2e4) (8) Sinai, Mt. (K4g2), in Sinai Peninsula SW of Akaba (1) Sinai Peninsula (K4/K5g1-5) Sion, Mt., Jerusalem (L1f4) (7) = Mt. Zion

(L1£2) = Qalat Nimrud Subaibah / Subeibah (9) Sur (L1f2) = fyre (8) e4) (L2 es Gat ian Syr

(9)

Vv Valania (L1e5) (8) WwW

T Tarsus (Turkey) (K5e3) (1)

Tartus (Lifi) = Tortosa (8)

Taurus Mountains (Turkey) (KLe) Tel Gezer (K5f4) = Gezer, Mont Gisard, hill between Ramla and Latrun (9)

Tel Bashir (L3e4) = Turbessel (8)

Wadi al Arabah (L1f4/ f3), wadi of Dead Sea leading S to Akaba Wadi Qelt (L1f4), wadi ENE of Jeruslem leading to Jericho

me Yabna (K5f4) = Ibelin, Yavne (9) Yahmur (L2f1) = Chastel Rouge (8) Yavne (K5f4) = Ibelin, Yabna (9) Yarmuk River (L1£3) (9)

Tel Danith (.2e5) = Danith (8) Thessalonika (Greece) Tiberias (L1£3) (9)

Tibnin (L1f2), village W of Toron (9) Toron (L1f2) (9)

Tortosa (Lif1) = Tartus (8)

Z

Tripoli (L1f1) = Tarabulus (8) Turbessel (L3e4) = Tel Bashir (8) Tyre (L1f2) = Sur (9)

Zion, Mt., Jerusalem (L1f4) = Mt. Sion (7)

Tyron (L1f2) (9) U

Urfa (L4e3) = Edessa (8)

611

Bibliography

The list below includes the references cited in the endof-text notes to this study pertaining to primary sources, books, independent articles, and reviews. Volumes of collected studies are cited, but not all articles contained therein are referred to individually, and not all brief archeological reports are included in the list.

206-209, and Wilkinson, J., ed., J. Hill, trans. Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1099-1185, London, 1988, pp. 220-222.

Anseau = Ansellis, Epistolae, Gallia Christiana, vol. VIL, Instrumenta, 2nd ed., Paris, 1874, cols. 44-46, and Migne, J.P., Patrologiae . . . Latina, Paris: Garnier Fratres Editores, 1889, cols. 728-731. Arnold of Ltibeck, Chronica Slavorum, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores, vol. XX1, Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii

The bibliography is organized in six parts:

Aulici

1 Primary sources and collections of sources, 2 Published bibliographies,

Hahniani,

1868, rpt. Leipzig:

K.W.

Hiersemann,

1925, Book 1, p. 115ff.

3 Reference works,

4 Secondary studies: books,

B

5 Secondary studies: articles, 6 Secondary studies: reviews.

Baldi, D., Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum, 2nd ed., Jerusalem:

1. Primary

Franciscan Printing Press, 1955, rpt., 1982. Belard d’Ascoli, Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, in De Sandoli, Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum, Il, pp. 43-49, and Wilkinson, J., ed. and trans., Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1099-1185, pp. 228-232. van Berchem, M., Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Ara-

Sources and Collections of Sources

bicarum: Il, Syrie du sud, 1. Jérusalem ville,

A

Aca Le

\rroasia, Tractatus super Temple Domini, ed. P. in, Corona Quernea, Festgabe Karl Strecker zum 80.

*e, Schriften der MGH, 6, Leipzig: K.W. HierseC

941; excerpts in De Sandoli, Itinera Hierosolymitana gnatorum, Il, pp. 51-61.

R

\achen = Alberti Aquensis, Historia Hierosolymitana, c., IV, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879, p. 265ff.

Bernard of Clairvaux Apologia ad Guillelmum Abbatem, eds. J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, trans. C. Rudolph, The “Things of Greater Importance”: Bernard of Clairvaux’s Apologia and the Medieval Attitude Toward Art, Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 232-287. Epistolae, in Migne, J.P., Patrologiae . . . Greco-Latina, vol. 182, Paris: J.P. Migne Editorem, 1862, cols. 453-454, 556-558.

Plans of the Sacred Edifices of the Holy Land (1609), ed. and trans. T. Bellorini and E. Hoade, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1953. Anna

Mémoires de I’In-

stitut Francais d’'Archéologie Orientale du Caire, vol. XLIU, Cairo, 1922-1923; II, Syrie du sud, 2. Jérusalem “Haram,” MIFAOC, vol. XLIV, Cairo, 1927.

Comnena, Alexiade, ed. and trans., B. Leib, vol. Il, Paris:

C

Société d’édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1943.

Cartularies Bresc-Bautier, G., Le Cartulaire du chapitre du Saint- Sépulcre de

\nonymous Icelandic Pilgrim’s Account, in Kedar, B.Z., and Westergard-Nielsen, C., “Icelanders in the Crusader king-

dom

of Jerusalem: A twelfth-century account,” Mediaeval mdinavia,

Jérusalem, Documents relatifs a I’histoire des Croisades, XV,

Paris: P. Geuthner, 1984.

11 (1978-1979), pp. 193-211, esp. pp- 202-203,

61

Delaborde, H.F., ed., Chartes de Terre Sainte provenant de I’abbaye de N.-D. de Josaphat, Bibliotheque des Ecoles Francai ses

G Gabrieli, F., Arab Historians of the Crusa des, trans. FJ. Costello Lond

d'Athénes et de Rome, 19, Paris: E. Thorin, 1880. Delaville le Roulx, J., Cartulaire Générale de I’Ordre des Hospital-

on: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969, ‘ Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hier osolimitanorum, ed. RAB. Mynors, The

iers de St.-Jean de Jérusalem: 1100-1300, vol. I, Paris: E. Leroux, 1894.

Deeds of the Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, trans. R. Hill, London: Nelson’s Medieval Texts, 1962. Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expu gnantium, RHC: Occ., II, Paris: Impr

Kohler, C., “Chartes de l’Abbaye de Notre-Dame de la Vallée de Josaphat en Terre-Sainte: 1108-1291,” Revue de l'Orient

Latin, 7 (1900), pp. 108-222.

de Roziére, E., Cartulaire de l’église du Saint Sépulcre de

imerie Nationale, 1866, pp. 491-543.

Jerusalem, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849. Ciampini, G.G., De Sacris Aedificiis a Constantino Magno Constructis: Synopsis Historica Joannis Ciamp ini, Rome: J.J. Komarek, 1693.

Giacomo da Verona, transcriptio n of the dedicatory mosaic in the Chur

ch of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Rohr icht, R., “Le Pélerinage du moine augustin Jacq ues de Vérone (1335),” Revue de l’Ori

“La Citez de Therusalem,” ed. T. Toble r, Descriptiones Terrae

ent Latin, 3 (1895), pp. 155-302. Guide attached to the Gesta Fran corum Therusalem expugnan-

D

Guide by a German Pilgrim, in De Sandoli, Itinera Hierosolymi-

Sanctae ex saeculo VIII. IX. XII. et XV., Leipz ig: J. C. Hintichs, 1874, rpt. Hildesheim/New York, 1974, pp. 197-224.

tium, RHC: Occ., I, pp. 509-512, and in Wilkinson, J., ed. and trans., Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1099-1185, London, 1988, pp. 172-1

76.

tana Crucesignatorum, vol.

II, Jerusalem, 1980, pp. 153-1 57 (Latin and Italian), and Wilk inson, J., ed. and trans., Jerusalem

Daniel, Abbot, from Chernigov, in Venev itinov, M.A., ed., Zhitie i knozhenie Danila rus’kka zemli igumena, 1106-1108, Palestinskiy pravoslavnyy sbornik, I, 3 (3), and III, 3, (9), St. Petersburg, 1883-1885 (Old Chur ch Slavonic), and in

Pilgrimage: 1099-1185, pp. 117-119.

Wilkinson, J., ed., W.E. Ryan, trans., Jerusalem Pilgrimage:

H

1099-1185, London, 1988, pp. 120-171.

Henry the Lion, Die Urkunden Heinrich des Lowen, Herzogs von Sachsen und Bayern, ed. K. Jordan, Monumenta Germaniae Histo

Daniel of Ephesus (1493-1499): Archaia latinika, hellenika,

rossika kai gallika tina hodoiporika, ed. K.M. Koikylides and I. Phokylides,

Jerusalem, 1912, p- 529.

“De Situ Urbis Jerusalem,” ed. M. de Vogiié, Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, Paris, 1860, pp. 412-4 14ff., and Wilkinson, ips ed. and trans., Jerusalem Pilgrimage : 1099-1185, pp. 177-180.

E Ekkehard, Abbot of Aura = Ekke hardi abbatis Uraugiensis Libe llus qui dicitur Hierosolymit a, RHC: Occ., V, Paris:

Imprimerie Nationale, 1895, pp. 1140 .

Ernoul, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. L. de Mas-Latr

ie, Paris, 1871, rpt. Famagu sta: Editions de

rica: Deutschen

Horn, E., Ichnographiae Locorum et Monumentorum Veterum Terrae Sanctae, Rome, 1902, 2nd ed., ed. and trans., E. Hoade

and B. Bagatti, Ichnographiae Monument orum Terrae Sanctae (1724-1744), Jerusalem: Franciscan Prin ting Press, 1962.

Hugh of St. Victor, De Locis circa Jerusalem, in Migne, J.P., Patrologia . . . Latinae, vol. 175, Paris : Garnier Fratres Editores, 1879, cols. 142-152, note 178, De Sandoli, Itinera Hierosolymitana Crucesignatorum, vol. II, pp. 159-168.

l’Oiseau, 1974,

Eugesippus, “De locis sanctis,” in Migne, J.P, Patrologiae .. . Graeco-Latina, vol. 133, Paris : J.P. Migne Editorem, 1864, cols. 991-1004.

Geschichtsquellen des Mitte

lalters, 500-1500, Stuttgart: Anton Hiersema nn, 1957. Historia peregrinorum euntium Jerusely mam, RHC: Occ., Il, pp. 169-229,

I Icelandic Guide, ed. and trans. B.Z. Kedar and C. We stergardNiels

en, Medieval Scandinavia, 11 (1978-1979 ), pp. 206-209, and Wilkinson, J., ed., J. Hill, trans., Jerusalem: | ‘ilgrimage: 1099-1185, pp. 220-222.

F Fetellus, see de Vogiié, ed., “The Work on Geograph

y.” First Guide, in Gesta Francoru m et aliorum Hierosolimitanor um,

Muhammed

ed. R.A.B. Mynors, trans. R. Hill, London: Nelson’s Medieval Texts, 1962, Pp. 98-1 01, and Wilkinson, J., ed., Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1099-1 185, pp. 87-89 (English). Fretellus, see Rorgo Fretellus. Fulcher of Chartres, in Hagenm eyer, H., ed., Fulcheri Carnotensis historia Hierosolymit ana (1095-1 127), Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuch

handlung, 1913 (Latin), and A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1 095-1127, ed., HS. Fink, trans. ER.

al Idrisi, Kitab Rudjar, ed., Gild emei

ster, J., “Idrisi’s Palastina und Syrien im arab ischen Text,” Beilage

Zu der Zeitschrift der Deutschen Paliistina -Vereins, 8 (1885), (Arabic and Germ

an), trans., Le Strange, G., “Idrisi’s Description of Jerusalem in 1154,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, (1888), pp. 31-35, and Wilkinso

n, J., ed. and trans., Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1090-1185, pp. 223-227.

“Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani, The Conquest of the Holy City, ed. F. Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, trans. E.J. Costello,

Ryan, New York: W.W. Norton, 1969.

London, 1969, pp. 164~175 (excerpts) .

614

[zz ad-Di

|-Athir, The Perfect History, ed. F. Gabrieli,

Arab His

f the Crusades, trans. E.J. Costello, London,

1969, Pr

Fra Niccolo

da Poggibonsi,

A Voyage

beyond

the Seas

(1346-1350), trans. T. Bellorini and E. Hoade, Jerusalem:

16 (excerpts).

Franciscan Printing Press, 1945. Nicetas Paphlago, Vita S. Ignati, ed. and trans. C. Mango, The

Art of the Byzantine Empire: 312-1453: Sources and DocuJ

ments, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,

1972, pp.

John of W ~ Crucesi trans. A. !

g, in De Sandoli, Itinera Hierosolymitana , vol. I, pp. 225-295 (Latin, T. Tobler ed.), art, annot. C.W. Wilson, Description of the Holy

Nikulas of Pvera, partly published in Kedar, B.Z., and West-

Land by

f Wiirzburg, Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, vol.

Jerusalem: A twelfth-century account,” Mediaeval Scandi-

1890, and Wilkinson, J., ed. and trans., Jerusalem 1099-1185, pp. 244-273.

Wilkinson, J., ed., J. Hill, trans. Jerusalem Pilgrimage:

V, London, Pilgrimage:

191-192.

ergard-Nielsen, C., “Icelanders in the crusader kingdom of navia, 11 (1978-1979), pp. 193-211, esp. pp. 203-206, and 1099-1185, pp. 215-219.

K Koran, Ali, A., trans., Al-Qur’an, Princeton: Princeton Univer-

sity Press, 1984.

O Ortlieb, Chronicon Zwifaltense, MGH: SS, X, Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Aulici Hahniani, 1852, pp. 71-124. Ottobonian Guide, in Mercati, S.G., “Santuari e reliquie Constantinopolitane secondo il codice Ottoboniano Latino 169

L Le Livre de Jean d’Ibelin, RHC:

prima della conquista Latina (1204),” Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti, ser. Ill, 12

Lois, I, Paris: Imprimerie

Nationale, 1841, pp. 1-432. Louis de Rochechouart, transcription of the dedicatory mosaic in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem: Couderc,

C., “Journal de Voyage a Jérusalem de Louis de Rochechouart, évéque de Saintes (1461),” Revue de l’Orient Latin, 1, (1893), pp. 168-274.

(1936), pp. 153-154, and Wilkinson, J., ed. and trans., Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1099-1185, pp. 92-93. Otto of Freising = Ottonis Episcopi Frisingensis Chronica sive Historia de Duabus Civitatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Aulici

Hahniani, 1912. Otto of Freising, The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146 A.D., trans. C.C. Mierow, New York:

M

Columbia University Press, 1928.

Michael the Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199), ed. and trans., J.-B. Chabot, vol. Ill, Paris: E. Leroux, 1905, rpt. Brussels, 1963 (Syriac with French translation).

P Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society Library, 13 vols., London: Com-

Michelant, M., and Raynaud, G., eds., “Les chemins et les pélerinages de la Terre Sainte,” Itinéraires a Jérusalem, Geneva; Imprimerie Jules = Guillaume Fick, 1882, pp.

mittee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1890-1897. Passiones Sancti Thiemonis archiepiscopi, RHC: Occ., V, Paris:

ed., Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Greco-

Pauli, S., ed., Codice diplomatico del sacro militare ordine

187-188

Imprimerie Nationale, 1895, p. 199ff.

Migne, J.?., Latina,

161 vols., Paris: J.P. Migne Editorem, 1857-1866.

gerosolimitano oggi di Malta, 2 vols., Lucca: Salvatore e Gian-

Migne, J.P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, 217 vols. i 4 index vols., Paris: J.P. Migne Editorem to

domenico Marescandoli, 1733-1737. Peter the Deacon, De Locis Sanctis, ed. R. Weber, Corpus Chris-

1868 /Garnier Fratres Editores after 1876, 1844-1891. Muhammad ibn Ahmad al Muqaddasi, excerpts trans. G. Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems: A Descriptions of Syria and | aly Land from A.D. 650 to 1500, Boston, 1890, rpt.

Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, London: S.P.C.K., 1971, pp. 179-210, and brief extracts in idem, Jerusalem Pilgrimage:

irut:

, 3rd ed., Paris: Librairie Letouzey, 1935. Meistermann, B., Le Mont Thabor: Notices historiques et desc

Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem,

Mekhitarian, A., Treasures of the Armenian Patt Jerusalem, Helen and Edward Mardigian Museum, logue no. 1, Jerusalem: Armenian Patriarchate, 1969. Mendel, G., Musées Impériaux Ottomans. Catalogue des

Verlag, |

aMonte

1100 to Americé

1291,

Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of i, Cambridge, Mass., 1932, rpt. New York:

Kraus, |

ange, S.

tives, Paris: J. Mersch, 1900.

ettura delle Crociate in Palestina, Como: Pietro

Imprime

Istanbul Archeological Museum, 1914.

iurence, la France et les Francais, 2 vols., Paris: ie

awrence

Metcalf, D.M., Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East, in the

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Royal Numismatic Saciety, special publication no. 15, London: Royal Numismatic Society

Nationale, 1980.

Crusader Castles, London: Golden Cockerell

and Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin

Press, 1936, rpt., London: Michael Haag, 1986. Oxford: azarev,

East, 1983.

E., Crusader Castles, introd. and annot. D. Pringle,

awrence,

Ox

ford University Press, 1988.

Miller, T.S., The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire,

Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Storia della pittura bizantina, Turin: Einaudi,

V-

1967.

ilie, R.-J., Ry Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten, Poikila Byzantina, 1, Munich: W. Fink, 1981, trans. J.C. Morris and J.E. Ridings, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096-1204, rev. ed., 1988, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. [ fane, P., Calendriers et Techniques Agricoles: France- Italie, XIle-XIlle siécles, Paris: Editions du Sycomore, 1983. farcenaro, C., I] Museo del Tesoro della Cattedrale a Genova, Milan: Silvana editoriale d’arte, 1969. fariti, G., Istoria dello stato presente della citta di Gerusalemme, vol. I, Livorno: T. Masi, 1790. farschak, B.I., Silberschiitze des Orients: Metalkunst des 3.—13. Jahr lerts und ihre Kontinuitat, Leipzig: VEB E.A. Seemann

faye: Jeru

The Middle East in Pictures, 4 vols., New York: 1980. se du Saint-Sépulcre a Jérusalem, 1, Les deux ccidentales & la chapelle Sainte-Marie, IL, 2 de la mesure ouvriére du Saint-Sépulcre & con; de cette recherche, Paris: E. Leroux, 1911.

viscine de Bethesda a Jérusalem, Paris: E. Leroux, 1888. E., Bistiimer, Kléster und Stifte im Kénigreich Schriften der MGH,

26, Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann,

1977

faye

Oxfor

, The Crusades, trans. J. Gillingham, 2nd ed.,

xford University Press, 1988.

H.E , Das Siegelwesen in den Kreuzfahrerstaaten, Baylayer, erische Akadewee der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, ase ilungen, n.f., heft 83, Munich, 1978. fayer rum

layer ]

jerusa

Morey, C.R., East Christian

Paintings in the Freer Collection,

University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, 12 Studies in East Christian and Roman Art, pt. 1, New York: Macmillan, 1914. trans. R. Burgi, Mouriki,D., The Mosaics of Nea Moni on Chios, C 2 vols. Athens: Commercial Bank of Greece, 1985. Miiller-Wiener, W., Burgen der Kreuzritter, Munich/Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1966. Muratova, X., et al., The Medieval Bestiary, Moscow: Iskusstvo Art Publishers, 1984.

N

Nelson, R., The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book, CAA Monograph,3¢5, New York: New York University Press, 1980.

g, 1986.

fatson, G.E., Arno Press, fauss, ‘

port Rech séque fauss, (

scuip-

tures grecques, romaines et byzantines, vol. Il, Constantinople:

Cairoli editore, 1965. ares, M., |

cata-

, Kreuzziige und lateinischer Osten, London: Vario983. de HLE., Mélanges sur l'histoire du Royaume Latin

Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres,

Mémoires, n.s., V, Paris: Imprimerie

!Nationale, 1984.

{cCulloch, F., Mediaeval Latin and French Bestiaries, University of North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and

Nicholson, R.L., Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in Their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment ofthe Latin States in Syria and Palestine, Chicago, 1940, rpt. New

York: AMS Press, 1978. O Omont, H., Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits g recs de la Bibliotheque Nationale du Ve au XIVe siécle, Paris: BiblioLore

sIo

théqueNationale, 19229. Orfali, G., Gethsémani, ou notice sur l'église de | Agonie ou de la

Priére, d’aprés les fouilles récentes accomplies par

la Custodie

franciscaine de Terre Sainte, Paris: A Picard, 1924. Ornamenta Ecclesiae: Kunst und Kiinstler der Romanik 3 vols., Katalog zur Ausstellung des Schniitgen-Museums in der Josef-Haubrich Kunsthalle, ed. A. Legner, Cologne: Greven and Bechtold GmbH, 1985. New Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State 1957. Press, ty Brunswick: Rutgers Universi Ovadiah, A., Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land, Theophaneia, 22, Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1970, with ss bu ments by A. Ovadiah and C. Gomez de Silva in Levant, XII 2

“awtinog

fe

>

>

NS

(1981), pp. 200-261, XIV (1982), pp. 122-170, and XVI (1984), pp. 129-165.

Richard, J., The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, trans., ]. Shirley, 2

vols., Amsterdam-New York-Oxford: North Holland, 1979,

Richard, J., Les Récits de Voyages et de Péelerinages, Typolo gie

des sources du moyen 4ge occidental, fasc. 38, Tu rnholt:

i

Brepols, 1981. Richard, J., Le Royaume latin de Jérusalem, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1953.

Pal, P., The Nasli M. Heeramaneck Collection, Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1973. Panadero, M., The Labors of the Months and the Signs of the Zodiac in Twelfth Century French Facades, Ph.D. dissertation: University of Michigan, 1984, 2 vols.

Richmond, E.T., The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem: 4 Description of its Structure and Decoration, Oxford: Oxford Univer sity Press, 1924.

Panofsky, E., Tomb Sculpture, ed., H.W. Janson, New York:

Rihaoui, A., Le Crac des Chevaliers: Guide tou ris tique et

Harry Abrams [1964].

Pastoureau, M., Traité d’Héraldique, Paris: Picard, 1979. Philippe, J., Le Monde Byzantin dans l'histoire de la Verrerie, Ve-XVle siécles, Bologna, 1970. Poidebard, A., Un grand port disparu: Tyr, Bibliothéque archéologique et historique, 29, Paris: P. Geuthner, 1939. Prawer, J., Crusader Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1980.

Prawer, J., Histoire du Royaume Latin de Jérusalem, 2 vols., 2nd

ed., Paris: Editions du Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, 1975. Prawer, J., The Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972. Pringle, D., The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pringle, D., The Defense of Byzantine Africa from Justinian to the Arab Conquest, BAR International Series, 99, 2 vols., Oxford:

B.A.R., 1981. Pringle, D., The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar): Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks, A.D. 1099-1516, British School of Archaeology in Jerusa lem, Monograph Series, 1, London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1986.

Prutz, H., Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzziige, Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler und Sohn, 1883.

archéologique, trans. G. Saddé, 2nd ed., Dama scus, Dir ection Générale des Antiquités et des Musées, 1982. Riley-Smith, J., ed., The Atlas of the Crusades, London : Times Books, 1991. Riley-Smith, J., The Crusades, A Short History, New Haven and

London: Yale University Press, 1987. Riley-Smith, J., The Feudal Nobility and the King dom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277, London and Basingstoke: Mac millan,

1973. Riley-Smith, J., The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusad ing, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986,

Riley-Smith, J., The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus,

c. 1050-1310, A History of the Order of the Hospital of St.

John of Jerusalem, vol. 1, London: Macmillan, 1967.

Riley-Smith, J., What Were the Crusades?, Londo n and Bas-

ingstoke: Macmillan, 1977.

Roberts, D., The Holy Land, Tel Aviv: Terra Sancta Arts, 1982. Robinson, E., and Smith, E., Later Biblical Researches in Pales-

tine, 2nd ed., Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1857. Runciman, S., The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the

Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth Centuries, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955. Runciman, S., A History of the Crusades, 3 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951-1954, Penguin Books, 1965. Russo, R., La chiesa del Santo Sepolcro a Barletta, Milan, 1934.

R

Rey, E.-G., Les Colonies franques de Syrie aux XIIe et XIIle siécles,

Paris: A. Picard, 1883. Rey, E.-G., Etude sur les monuments de l'architecture militaire des

croisés en Syrie et dans I'ile de Chypre, Collection de documents inédits sur I’histoire de France, sér. 1: Histoir e poli-

tique, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1871. Rey, E.-G., Les Familles d’outre-mer de Du Cange, Paris:

C: Beitrage

zur

Beirut: Dar Sader, 1987.

Salamé-Sarkis, H., Contribution a l'histoire de Tripoli et de sa région a l’époque des Croisades, Bibliothéque archéologique et historique, CVI, Paris: P Geuthner, 1980.

ciscan Printing Press, 1957. Salzmann, A., Jérusalem: Etude de réproduction phi ‘ographique

Rheinheimer, M., Das Kreuzfahrerfiirstentum Galilia, Kieler

Reihe

Sader, Y., Peintures Murales dans les églises Maronites médiévales,

Saller, S., Excavations at Bethany: 1949-1953, Jerusaiem: Fran-

Imprimerie Nationale, 1869.

Werkstiicke,

S

europdischen

Geschichte des friihen und hohen Mittel alters, Bd. 1,

Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1990.

des monuments de la Ville Sainte, vol. IL, Paris, 185

Santeramo, S., I Simbolismo della Cattedrale di Bariett a, Barletta,

1917, rpt. Bologna: A. Forni, 1978. de Saulcy, L.F, Numtismatique des Croisades, Paris: Firmin

Riant, P., Etudes sur l'histoire de l'église de Bethléem, 2 vols., Paris: Ernst Leroux, 1889, 1896.

Didot Fréres, 1847.

Riant, P., Expéditions et pélerinages des Scandi naves en Terre Sainte au temps des Croisades, Paris: Imprimerie A. de Lainé

Sayegh, S., Le Statu Quo des Lieux-Saints: Nature juridique et Portee Internationale, Corona Lateranensis, 21, Rome: Libre-

et J. Havard, 1865.

tia Editrice dell Pontificia Universita’ Lateranense, 1971.

Richard, J., Le Comté de Tripoli sous la dynastie toulousaine

Schafer-Schuchardt, H., Die figurliche Steinplastik des 11 —13.

(1102-1187), Bibliothéque archéologique et histor ique, 39, Paris: P. Geuthner, 1945, rpt. New York, 1980.

Jahrhunderts in Apulien, corpus in 4 vols., vol. 1, Bari: Adriatica, 1987.

624

ee

ee

ee a

gchaifer-Schuchardt, H., Die Kanzeln des 11. bis 13. Jahrhunderts

in Apulien,

Starensier, A. La Barre, An Art Historical Study of the Byzantine

Silk Industry, Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1982.

dissertation, Julius-Maximilians-Univer°h.D. 1972.

sitat, Wiirzburg,

Steenbock, F,, Die kirchliche Prachteinband im friihen Mittelalter

Schick, C., Die stiftshiitte, der Tempelplatz in Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz

von den Anfingen bis zum Beginn der Gotik, Berlin: Deutscher Verlag fiir Kunstwissenschaft, 1965. Stylianou, A.S., and J.A., The Painted Churches of Cyprus: Treasures of Byzantine Art, London: Trigraph, 1985.

der Jetztzeit, Berlin: Weidmann, 1896.

Schlumberger, G., Numismatique de l’Orient Latin, Paris: E.

Leroux, 1678, Supplément, 1882, rpt. Graz: Akademische Druck...

; 1954.

Schlumberger, G., Renaud de Chatillon, Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit,

iT

1898/1923. Schlumberger, G., Sigillographie de l’Empire Byzantin, Paris: E.

Thompson, J.D., and Goldin, G., The Hospital: A Social and Architectural History, New Haven: Yale University Press,

Leroux, 1884.

1975.

Schlumberger, G., et al., Sigillographie de l’Orient Latin, Biblio-

Tyerman, C., England and the Crusades: 1095-1588, Chicago

théeque archélogique et historique, XXXVI, Paris: P. Geuthner, 1943.

and London: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Schmaltz, K., Mater Ecclesiarum: Die Grabeskirche in Jerusalem, Strassburg: J.H. Ed. Heitz (Heitz and Miindel), 1918, rpt.

Vv

Leipzig, 1984.

Schramm, P.E., Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, Schriften

Vasiliev, A.A., History of the Byzantine Empire: 324-1453, 2 vols., Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1958.

der MGH, Bd. 13.1, Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1954, Bd. 13.11, Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1956. Schramm, P.E., Die deutschen Kaiser und Konige in Bildern ihrer Zeit: 751-1190, new ed., ed. F. Miitherich, Munich: Prestel

de Vaux, R., and Steve, A.M., Fouilles @ Quaryet el--Anab (Abu

Ghosh), Palestine, Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950. Viaud, P., Nazareth et ses deux églises de I'Annonciation et de Saint-Joseph d’aprés les fouilles récentes, Paris: Librairie Alphonse Picard et fils, 1910. Les Vikings . . . Les Scandinaves et l'Europe, 800-1200, 22eme exposition d’art du conseil de l'Europe, Paris-BerlinCopenhagen, 1992.

Verlag, 1983. Schultz, R. Weir, ed., The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, London: B.T. Batsford for the Byzantine Research Fund, 1910.

Seemann, K.D., Abt Daniil: Walfahrtsbericht, Slavische Propy-

Vincent, H., and Abel, F-M., Bethléem: Le Sanctuaire de la

laen, Bd. 36, Munich: W. Fink, 1970.

Nativité, Paris: J. Gabalda, 1914.

Seidel, L., Songs of Glory: The Romanesque Facades ofAquitaine, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Vincent, H., and Abel, E-M., Emmaiis. Sa Basilique et son histoire, Paris: E. Leroux, 1932.

Setton, K.M., A History of the Crusades

Vincent, H., and Abel, E-M., Jérusalem: Recherches de topogra-

vol. I, The First Hundred Years, ed. M.W. Baldwin, Madison,

phie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, Paris: J. Gabalda Editeur,

Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin Press,

Librairie Victor Lecoffre, vol. I, Jérusalem nouvelle, fasc. III,

1969;

1914, fasc. Ill, 1922, fasc. IV, 1926. Vincent, H., and MacKay, E.J.H., Hébron: Le Haram el-Khalil, Sépulture des Patriarches, Paris: E. Leroux, 1923. van der Vliet, N., “Saint Marie: ou est elle née,” et la piscine probatique, Paris: J. Gabalda, 1938.

vol. Il, The Later Crusades: 1189-1311, ed. R.L. Wolff and H.W. Hazard, Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969;

vol. Ill, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, ed. H.W. Hazard, Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press,

de Vogiié, C.J.M., Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, Paris: V. Didron,

1860, rpt. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1973. de Vogiié, C.J.M., Le Temple de Jérusalem: Monographie du Haram-ech-Chérif, suivie d’un essai sur la topographie de la ville-sainte, Paris: Noblet et Baudry, 1864.

1975;

vol. IV, The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, ed. H.W. Hazard, Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977;

vol. V, The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East, ed. NP. Zacour and H.W. Hazard, Madison and London: Univer-

sity of Wisconsin Press, 1985; and vol. VI, The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, eds. H.W. Hazard

W

and N.P. Zacour, Madison and London: University of Wis-

Walter, C., L'Iconographie des Conciles dans la Tradition Byzan-

consin Press, 1989.

tine, Paris: Institut francais d’études byzantines, 1970.

Silva, R., La basilica di S. Frediano in Lucca, urbanistica, architettura, arredo, Lucca: M. Pacini Fazzi, 1985.

Warren, C., and Conder, C.R., The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem, London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1884.

Smail, R.C., The Crusaders in Syria and the Holy Land, New York and Washington: Praeger, 1973. Smail, R.C., Crusading Warfare: 1097-1193, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956.

Weitzmann, K., The Icon: Holy Images — Sixth to Fourteenth Cen-

tury, New York: George Braziller, 1978. Weitzmann, K., The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai:

Sotiriou, G., and M., Icones du Mont Sinai, Collection de 1’In-

The Icons, vol. I, From the Sixth to the Tenth Century, Prince-

stitut Francais d’Athénes, 100, 102, Athens, 1956, 1958.

ton: Princeton University Press, 1976.

625

Weitzmann, K., Studies in the Arts at Sinai, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Bahat, D., and Reich, R., “Une Eglise médiévale dans le Quartier

Weitzmann, K., et al., The Icon, New York: Alfred A. Knopf,

Balog, P., and Yvon, J., “Monnaies a légendes arabes de ‘Orient

1982. Wessel, K., Byzantine Enamels from the Fifth to the Thirteenth Century, trans. I.R. Gibbons, Recklinghausen: Verlag Aurel Bongers, 1967. Wharton, A.J., Art of Empire: Painting and Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery, A Comparative Study of Four Provinces, University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State Uni-

juif de Jérusalem,” Revue biblique, 93 (1986), pp. 111-114.

Latin,” Reoue numismatique, 6me sér., I (1958), pp. 133-168,

Bautier, G., “L’Envoi de la Relique de la Vraie Croix 4 NotreDame de Paris en 1120,” Bibliothéque de l'Ecole des Chartes,

129 (1971), pp. 387-397. Beddie, J.S., “Some notices of books in the East in the period

of the Crusades,” Speculum, 8 (1933), pp. 240-242.

M. Bennett and J.B. Hennessy at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem,

Belli D’Elia, P., “Acceptus,” La Puglia fra Bisanzio e l'Occidente , Milan, 1980, pp. 175-177. Belting, H., “Zwischen Gotik und Byzanz: Gedanken zur Geschichte der sachsischen Buchmalerei im 13. Jahrhun-

Wigley, MJ., Archaeological Studies in Jerusalem, London, 1856. Wilkinson, J., Column Capitals in Al-Haram Al-Sharif (from 138

Bendall, S., “The Mint of Trebizond under Alexius I and the Gabrades,” Numismatic Chronicle, 7th ser., 17 (1977), pp.

versity Press, 1988. Wightman, GJ., The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem: Excavations by C.-

1964-66, BAR International Series, 519, Oxford: B.A.R., 1989.

A.D. to 1118 A.D.), Jerusalem: Administration of Wakfs and

Islamic Affairs/Islamic Museum, al-Haram al-Sharif,

Jerusalem, 1987.

Williams, G., The Holy City: Historical, Topographical, and Antiquarian Notices of Jerusalem, vol. 2, 2nd ed., London: J.W. Parker, 1849. Z

dert,” Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte, 41 (1978), pp. 217-257. 132-135. Ben-Doy, M., “Belvoir,” Encyclopedia of Archeological Excava-

tions in the Holy Land, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975, pp. 179-184. van Berchem, Marguerite, “The Mosaics of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and of the Great Mosque in Damascus,” in Creswell, K.A.C., Early Muslim Architecture, 2nd ed., vol.

L pt. 1, Oxford, 1969, pp. 213-322.

Zander, W., Israel and the Holy Places of Christendom, New York: Praeger, 1971.

5. Secondary Studies: Articles A

Amitai, R., “Notes on the Ayyubid Inscriptions at al-Subayba

(Qal’at Nimrud),” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 43 (1989), pp.

113-119.

Avalishvili, Z., “The Cross from Overseas,” Georgica, I (1936), pp. 3-11. Avi-Yonah, M., “Abu Ghosh,” Encyclopedia of Archeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, 1975, pp. 3-8.

van Berchem, Max, “Le chateau de Banias et ses inscrip-

tions,” Journal Asiatique, sér. 8, 12 (1888), pp. 440-470.

Berliére, U., “Die alten Benedictinerkléster im heiligen Lande,” Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benediktiner- und

dem Cistercienser-Orden, 9 (1888), pp- 113-130, 260-272, 473-492. Bettini, S., “La Bibbia “Bizantina’ della Guarneriana di San Daniele e l’Evangelario dell’ Archivio Capitolare di Udine,” La Miniatura in Friuli, ed. G.C. Menis and G. Bergamini, Udine, 1972, pp. 179-185. Bieberstein, K., “St. Julian oder St. Johannes Evangelista?, Zur

historischen Identifizierung einer neuentdeckten Kreuzfahrerkirche in der Altstadt Jerusalems,” Zeitschrift des

Deutschen Paliistina-Vereins, 103 (1987), pp. 178-184. Bieberstein, K., and Bieberstein, S., “St. Thomas Alemanno-

rum oder St. Peter ad vincula?, Zur historischen Identifizierung einer wiederentdeckten Kreuzfahrerkirche in der Altstadt Jerusalems,”

Zeitschrift des Deutschen

Paliistina-Vereins, 104 (1988), pp. 152-161.

B

Biddle, M., “Jerusalem: The Tomb of Christ,” Cur rent Archae-

Bachrach, B.S., “The Cost of Castle Building: The Case of the Tower at Langeais, 992-994,” The Medieval Castle, Romance and Reality, ed. K. Reyerson and Faye Powe, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1984, pp. 47-62. Bagatti, B., “Nuove scoperte alla Tomba della Vergine a Get-

ology, 11 (1991), pp. 107-111.

Biddle, M., “The Tomb of Christ,” The Illustrated London News,

Christmas, 1990, pp. 83-86.

Boase, T.S.R., “The Arts in the Latin Kingdom of Jesrusalem, iv Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Insti utes, 2

semani,” Liber Annuus, XXII (1972), pp- 236-290.

(1938/1939), pp. 1-21. Borg, A., “The Holy Sepulchre Lintel,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 35 (1972), pp. 389-390. Borg, A., “The Lost Apse Mosaic of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” The Vanishing Past, ed. A. Borg and A. Martindale, Oxford, 1980, pp. 7-12.

Bagatti, B., “Le Pitture nedievali della pietra de Betfage,” Liber Annuus, I (1950-1951), pp. 228-246.

Bagatti, B., “Tempera dell’ Antica Basilica di Getsem ani,” Riv-

ista di Archeologia Cristiana, XV (1938), pp. 153-159. Bahat, D., “The Doors of the Monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai,” Le Porte di Bronzo dall’antichiti al secolo XIII, ed. S. Salome, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1990,

Borg, A., “Observations on the Historiated Lintel of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld

pp. 135-137.

ee

Institutes, 32 (1969), pp. 25-40.

626

ee

Borg, A., “Romanesque Sculpture from the Rhone Valley to the Jordan Valley,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J.

Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp. 97-120. Braune, \i., “Die mittelalterliche Befestigungen der Stadt Tortosa/Tartus. Vorbericht der Untersuchungen 1981-1982,” Damaszener Mitteilungen, 2 (1985), pp. 45-54.

Brisch, K., “Observations on the Iconography of the Mosaics in the Great Mosque at Damascus,” Content and Context of Visual Arts in the Islamic World, ed. P. Soucek, CAA Monograph, 44, University Park and London: Pennsylvania State

Chandon de Briailles, F,, “Sur deux Bulles de I’Orient Latin,”

Mélanges Syriens offerts & Monsieur René Dussaud, vol. 1,

Paris, 1939, pp. 139-143. Clapham, A.W., “The Latin Monastic Buildings of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” The Antiquaries Journal, (1921), pp. 1-18. Clark, A.C., “Achard d’Arrouaise, Poeme sur le Temple de Salomon: Fragment inédit,” Revue de l’Orient Latin, XI

(1909-1911), pp. 263-274.

Claussen, P.C., “Goldschmiede des Mittelalters,” Zeitschrift

University Press, 1988, pp. 13-24.

des Deutschen Vereins fiir Kunstwissenschaft, 32 (1978), pp.

Brundage, J., “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois,” Traditio,

46-86.

16 (1960), pp. 380-395.

Clermont-Ganneau, C., “La Pierre de Bethphage,” Revue archéologique, n.s., 34 (1877), pp. 366-388.

Buchthal, H., “The Beginnings of Manuscript Illumination in Norman Sicily,” Papers of the British School at Rome

Clermont-Ganneau, C., “Un reliquaire des Croisades,” Recueil

(Studies in Italian Medieval History presented to Miss E.M. Jamison), 24, n.s. 11 (1956), pp. 78-85, and Art of the Mediterranean World, A.D. 100 to 1400, ed. J. Folda et

al., Washington, D.C.: Decatur House Press, 1983, pp. 88-97

d'Archéologie Orientale, Il, Paris, 1898, pp. 234-239. Connor, C., “New Perspectives on Byzantine Ivories,” Gesta, 30 (1991), 100-111. Connor, C., “The Question of Color on Late Antique and

Byzantine Ivories, “Abstracts of Papers: 16th Annual Byzan-

Buchthal, H., “A School of Miniature Painting in Norman

tine Studies Conference, Baltimore, 1990, p. 11. Constable, G., “The Financing of the Crusades in the Twelfth Century,” Outremer, ed. B.Z. Kedar et al., Jerusalem, 1982, pp. 64-88. Constable, G., “Medieval Charters as a Source for the History of the Crusades,” Crusade and Settlement, ed. P.W. Edbury,

Sicily,” Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of A.M. Friend, Jr., ed. K. Weitzmann, et al., Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1955, pp. 312-339. Bulst-Thiele, M.L., “Die Mosaiken der ~Auferstehungskirche’ in Jerusalem und die Bauten der ‘Franken’ im 12. Jahrhundert,” Friihmittelalterliche Studien, 13 (1979), pp. 442-471. Buschhausen, H., “Die Fassade der Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp. 71-96.

Cardiff, 1985, pp. 73-89. Cormack, R., and Mihalarias, S., “A Crusader painting of St. George: “maniera greca’ or “lingua franca’?,” Burlington

Cahn, W., “Solomonic Elements in Romanesque Art,” The

Magazine, 126 (1984), pp. 132-141. Cré, L., “Recherche et découverte du tombeau de saint Joachim et de sainte Anne sous l’antique basilique de Sainte-Anne a Jérusalem,” Revue Biblique, 2 (1893), pp. 245-274.

Temple of Solomon, Archaeological Fact and Medieval Tradition

Creswell, K.A.C., “Fortification in Islam before A.D. 1250,”

in Christian, Islamic and Jewish Art, ed. J. Gutmann, Mis-

Proceedings of the British Academy, 38 (1952), pp. 89-125. “The Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem — The First European Colonial Society?: A Symposium,” The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem, 1992, pp. 341-366.

G

soula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976, pp. 50-66. Canard, M., “La Destruction de l’église de la Resurrection par le Calife Hakim et l’histoire de la descente du feu sacré,”

Cutler, A., “Ephraim, Mosaicist of Bethlehem: The Evidence

Byzantion, 35 (1966), pp. 16-43.

from Jerusalem,” Jewish Art, 12-13 (1986-1987), pp. 179-183.

Canart, P., “Le legature bizantine della Biblioteca Vaticana,” Legature Bizantine Vaticane, Rome: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1988, pp. 3-48.

Caron, E.G.L., “Monnaies frappées 4 Damiette par les Croisés. Jean de Brienne, roi de Jérusalem,” Bulletin de I'In-

D

stitut Egyptien, 7 (1896), pp. 107-113.

Dean, B., “The Exploration of a Crusaders’ Fortress (Montfort) in Palestine,” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, XXII, part II (1927), pp. 91-97. Deschamps, P., “Un Chapiteau roman du Berry imité a Nazareth au XIle siécle,” Monuments et Mémoires, Foundation Piot, 32 (1932), pp. 119-126.

Carr, A. VVeyl, “East, West, and Icons in Twelfth-Century Out-

remer,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, eds. V. Goss and C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo, 1986, pp. 347-359.

Carr, A. Weyl, “The Mural Paintings of Abu Ghosh and the Patronage of Manuel Comnenus in the Holy Land,” Cru-

sader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp. 215-244. Cecchelli, C., “Il tesoro del Laterano, “Oreficerio, argente, smalti,”

Deschamps, P., “Les deux Cracs des Croisés,” Journal Asiatique, 229 (1937), pp. 494-500.

Deschamps, P., “Le Krak des Chevaliers,” Gazette des BeauxArts, 71 (1929), pp. 1-34.

Dedalo, 7 (1926/1927), pt. 1, pp. 139-166, pt. 2, 231-256. Chandon de Briailles, E., “Le droit de ‘coins’ dans le royaume

Deschamps, P., “La Sculpture frangaise en Palestine et en

de Jérusalem,” Syria, 23 (1942/1943), pp. 244-257.

627

Syrie a l’époque des Croisades,” Monuments et Mémoires, Fondation Piot, 31 (1930), pp. 91-118. Deschamps, P., “Combats de cavalerie et episodes des Croisades dans les peintures murales du XIle et de XIIe siécle,” Miscellanea Guillaume de Jerphanion, Orientalia Chris-

tiana Periodica, 12 (1947), pp. 454-474. Diehl, Ch., “Les Fresques de l’église d’Abou-Gosch,” Comptes— rendus des séances de I'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, 1924, pp. 89-96. Diehl, Ch., “Les Monuments

de l’Orient Latin,” Revue de

l'Orient Latin, 5 (1897), pp. 293-310. Dodd, E.C., “Notes on the Monastery of Mar Musa AIHabashi, near Nebek, Syria,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp. 167-190. Dodd, E.C., “The Monastery of Mar Musa Al-Habashi, Near Nebek, Syria,” Arte Medievali, 6 (1992), pp. 61-131 , with appendices on the inscriptions by J. McCullough (pp. 133-135) and K. Tweir (pp. 136-144). Dodd, E.C., “Notes on the Wall Painting of Mart Shmuni,” Archéologie au Levant: Recueil R. Saidah, Collec tion de la Maison

de

1’Orient

Méditerranéen,

no.

12,

sér.

archéologique, 9, Lyon, 1982, pp. 451462. Dressaire, L., “Les peintures executées au XIle siécle sur les colonnes de la basilique de Bethléem,” Jérusa lem, 27 (1932),

Pp. 365-369. Druce, G.C., “The Caladrius and Its Legen d,” Archaeological Journal, 69 (1913), pp. 381-416.

Dunkel, F, “Die Adamskapelle und die Graber der lateinischer KGnige Jerusalems,” Das Heilige Land, 50 (1906) , pp. 56-68.

Durrieu, P., “Une vue de l'Eglise du Saint -Sépulchre vers 1436, provenant du Bon Roi René,” Florilegium: Recueil de Travaux d'Erudition dédiés & M. le Marquis Melch ior de Vogiié, Paris, 1909, pp. 197-207. E Edwards, R.W., “Bagras and Armenian Cilicia: A Reassessment,” Revue des études Arméniennes, n.s., 17 (1983), pp:

415-455. Ellenblum, R., “Construction Methods in Frankish Rural Settlements,” The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem,

1992, pp. 168-189. Ellenblum, R., “Who Built Qal’at al-Su bayba?,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 43 (1989), pp. 103-112. Elm K., “St. Pelagius in Denkendorf: Die alteste deutsche Propstei des Kapitels vom Hlg. Grab in Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung,” Landesgesc hichte und Geistesgeschichte: Festschrift fiir Otto Herding zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. K. Elm, et al. = Veréff. der Komm. fiir Geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Wi irtemmberg, Reihe B Forschungen, Bd. 92, Stutt gart, 1977, pp. 80-130. Elsberg, H.A., “Two Medieval Woven Silk Fabrics in the Binding of the 9th Century MS. “The Four Gospels’ in the Pierpont Morgan Library,” Bulletin of the Needle and Bobbin Club, XVII (1935), pp. 2-11. Enlart, C., “L’Abbaye cistercienne de Belmont en Syrie,” Syria, TV (1923), pp. 1-23.

Epstein, A.W., “Frescoes of the Mavriotiss a Monastery near Kastoria: Evidence of Millenaria nism and Anti-

Semitism in the Wake of the First Crusade,” Gesta, 2] (1982), pp. 21-29. Epstein, A., “The Date and Significance of the Cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 37 (1983), pp. 79-90. F

Fabre, A., “La Sculpture provencale en Palestine au XIle siacle,” Echos d’Orient, 21 (1922), pp. 45-51.

Fanti, M., “Sulla simbologia gerosolimitana del com plesso di Santo Stefano di Bologna,” Carrobbio, X (1984), pp. 121-133,

de Farcy, L., “Croix de la Roche-Foulques, ” Revue de l'Art

Chrétien, 48 (1905), pp. 337-339. Feld, O., “Mittelbyzantinische Sarkophage,” Rémische Quartalschrift, 65 (1970), pp. 158-184. Fergusson, P., “The Refectory at Easby Abbey: Form and

Iconography,” Art Bulletin, 71 (1989), pp- 334-351. Fleischhauer, W., “Das romanische Kreuzreliq uiar von Denkendorf,” Festschrift fiir Georg Scheja zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. A. Leuteritz et al., Sigmaringen: Jan Thorb ecke Verlag, 1975, pp. 64-68. Folda, J., “The Church of Saint Anne,” Bibli cal Archaeologist,

54 (1991), pp. 88-96.

Folda, J., “Crusader Painting in the 13th Century: The State of the Question,” II medio oriente e |‘occidente nell’arte del XIII

secolo, ed. H. Belting, Bologna, 1982, pp. 103-115. Folda, J., “A Fourth Capital from the Chapel of the Jerusalem,” Levant, XV (1983), pp. 194-195.

Folda, J., “Images of Queen Melisende in Manuscripts of William of Tyre’s History of Outremer: 12501300,” Gesta, XXXII (1993), pp. 97-112. Folda, J., “Problems of the Crusader Sculptures at the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth,” The Meeti n g of Two Worlds, ed. V. Goss and C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo, 1986,

pp. 133-144. Folda, J., “The Saint Marina Icon, Maniera Cypria , Lingua Franca, or Crusader Art?”, Four Icons in the Menil C ollection,

ed. B. Davezac, Menil Collection Monographs, |, Houston

and Austin: Menil Foundation, 1992, pp- 106-133.

Folda, J., “Three Crusader Capitals in Jerusalem,”

(1978), pp. 139-155.

Levant, X

Folda, J., “A Twelfth-Century Prayerbook for the Queen of Jerusalem,” Medieval Perspectives, VIII (1993), pp. 1-14.

Folda, J., et al., “Crusader Frescoes at Crac des Chevaliers and Margab Castle,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 36 (1982), pp. 177-210.

France, J., “The Election and Title of Godfrey de Bouillon,” Canadian Journal of History, 17 (1983), pp. 321-329.

Freeman-Grenville, G.S.P., “The Basilica of the Hol; Sepulchre, Jerusalem: History and Future,” Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society (1987), pp. 187-207. French, J.M., “Search for a Provenance: The Duke University Apostles,” eds. C. Bruzelius with J. Meredith, The Brummer Collection of Medieval Art, Durham, N.C., and London:

Duke University Press, 1991, pp. 56-73.

628

Repose in

ortraits of the Evangelists in Greek and

«end, A.M

aLatin

' Art Studies, 5 (1927), pp. 115-147, 7

Mat

Hagenmeyer, H., “Chronologie de la Premiére Croisade (1094-1100),”

(1929), PP:

tre Thomas

Frolow, A-,

de Damas et les mosaiques

Bulletin d'Etudes Orientales de I'Institut XI (1945/1946), pp. 121-130. ia Bizantina’ delle Biblioteca Guarneriana Friuli,” Scritti Storici in memoria di Paolo \. Tagliaferri, Milan: Dott. A. Giuffré Edi-

du St.- Se} Francais a

Furlan, C., “! in $. Danie} Lino Zovat

W123.

tore, 1972, p

Revue

de l'Orient

Li atin,

7

(1900), pp. 275-339

430-503, 8 (1901), pp. 318-382.

Hamilton, B., “The Cistercians in the Crusade States,” Two: Monastic Tradition East and West

On

ed. B. Pennington

Cistercian Studies, 29, Kalamazoo, 1976, pp. 405-422 Hamilton, B., “The Elephant of Christ: Reynald of Chatillon Studies in Church History, 15 (1978), pp. 97-108, rpt. in idem Monastic Reform, Catharism

and the Crusades

/

London: Variorum, 1979), article XIII. Hamilton, B., “Manuel I Comnenus and Baldwin IV of Jerusalem,” KAOHTHTPIA: Essays presented to Joan Hussey lusset

G

London, 1988, pp. 353-375.

The Stars of the Virgin: An Ekphrasis of an ther of God,” Eastern Churches Review, I

Galavaris, © Ikon of the

». 364-369.

(1966-1968

‘s Dome of Victory at the Horns of Hattin,” Gal, Z., “Salad The Horns of I jattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem, 1992, pp.

Fortress, 2 (1989), pp. 23-35. Garrison, E.B.,

“A Twelfth-Century Bible: A Jerusalem (?)

Masterpiece,” Studies in the History of Mediaeval Italian Painting, vol. Ill, Florence, 1958, pp. 300-309. Garufi, C.A., “Il Tabulario di S. Maria di Valle Giosafat,” Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientale, 5 (1908), p. 337ff. Gavin, C.E.S., “Bonfils and the Early Photography of the Near East,” Harvard Library Bulletin, XXVI (1978), pp. 442-470.

Germer-Durand, P., “La Sculpture franque en Palestine,” Conferences de Saint Etienne, 1910-1911, Paris: J. Gabalda, 1911, 22.9 pp. 233-2

AProblem Gordus, A.A.,

sis of the

in Numismatics,

“Romanesque Sculpture in Campania and Sicily: of Method,” Art Bulletin, 56 (1974), pp. 315-324. and Metcalf, D.M., “Neutron Activation Analy-

Gold Coinages of the Crusader States,” Metallurgy

| (1980), pp. 137-141.

Grabois, A., “La cité de Baniyas et le chateau de Subeibeh pendant les croisades,” Cahiers de Civilisation Meédiévale, 13

(1970), pp

Grierson, P.

62

he Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emper-

ors (337-

’ with an additional note by C. Mango and

I. Sevcer Grosdidie

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 16 (1962), pp- 1-63. » Maton, D., and Hoffmann, P., “Reliures

Chypri

EnteTnpi (1987-19: Gurlitt, C Jerusalem Clemen, 1926, pp

tory, 14 (1977), pp. 105-116. Hamilton, B., “Women in the Crusader States: Jerusalem (1100-1190),” Medieval Women,

The Queens of ed. D. Baker,

Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978, pp. 143-174.

213-215. Gardiner, R., “Crusader Turkey: The Fortifications of Edessa,”

Glass, D.F.,

Hamilton, B., “Rebuilding Zion, The Holy Places of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century,” Studies in Church Hi

A la Bibliothéque Nationale

de Paris,”

D Kévtpov “EmtotnuoviKGyv Epevvwv, XVI

yp. 209-259. Das Grab Christi in der Grabeskirche in Festschrift zum sechzigsten Geburtstag von Paul Oktober 1926, Diisseldorf: Verlag L. Schwann, 199,

H

Hamilton, R.W., “Note on a Mosaic Inscription in the Church of the Nativity,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquitie Palestine, 6 (1937), pp. 210-211.

Harper, R.P., and Pringle, D., “Belmont Castle: A Historical Notice and Preliminary Report of Levant, 20 (1988), pp. 101-118.

Excavations in 1986,”

Harper, R.P., and Pringle, D., “Belmont Castle 1987: Second Preliminary Report of Excavations,” Levant, 21 (1989), pp. 47-59. Harvey, P.D.A., “Local and Regional Cartography

in

Medieval Europe,” The History of Cartography, vol. 1, eds.

J.B. Harley and D. Woodward, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 464-501.

Heilbrun, E., “Auguste Salzmann, Photographe malgré lui,” E, de Saulcy (1807-1880) et la Terre Sainte, ed. N. Villa et al., Notes et Documents des musées de France, 5, Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1982, pp. 114-182. Heimann, A., “A Twelfth-Century

Manuscript

from Winch-

combe and its Illustrations: Dublin, Trinity College, Ms. 53,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld

Institutes, 28

(1965), pp. 86-109. DamHennessy, J.B., “Preliminary Report on Excavations at the

ascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66,”

Levant, 11 (1970), pp. 22-27.

Lorenzo

S. Herklotz, I., “Mittelalterliche Baldachingraber in

fuori le mura, Rom,” Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte,

43

(1980), pp. 11-20.

Herlihy, D., “Pisan Coinage and the Monetary Development of Tuscany, 1150-1250,”

American

Museum Notes, 6 (1954), pp- 143-153. Hevdenreich,

Society:

Numismatic

L.H., “Ein Jerusalem-Plan

aus der zeit des

ler Zur Kreuzfahrers,” Miscellanea pro arte. Hermann Schnitz L. Verlag ldorf: Diisse ahres, Vollendung des 60. Lebensj

Schwann, 1965, pp. 83-90.

e de Hagenme} er, H., “Chronologie de I’histoire du Royaum Jérusalem: Régne de Baudouin I (1101-1118),” Revue de l'Orient Latin, 9 (1902), pp. 384-465, 10 (1903-1904), pp-

372-405, 11 (1905-1908), pp. 145ff., 453ff., 12 (1911), PP:

68ff., 283- 326 (incomplete).

de Saint-Gilles et Hiestand, R., “St.-Ruf d’Avignon, Raymond Annales du Midi, 98 l’Eglise Latine du Comté de Tripoli,” 6. (1986), pp- 327-33 Monasteries in the Hirschfeld, Y., “List of the Byzantine i099 tHe Hols in the Holy Lana+d Judean Desert,” Christian Arc haeology T

as

7

New

Discoveries, Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini et al., Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1990, pp. 1-90.

XIII, ed. S. Salomi, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Ital-

iana, 1990, pp. 121-134. Jacoby, Z., “A Newly Discovered Crusader Fragme nt in

Horning, R., “Verzeichnis von Mosaiken aus Mesopotamien,

Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal, 30 (1980), Pp. 202-204.

Syrien, Palastina und dem Sinai,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen

Jacoby, Z., “Le Portail de l’Eglise de l’Annonciation de Nazareth au XIle Siécle: Un essai de reconstitution,” Monuments et Mémoires: Fondation Piot, 64 (1981), pp. 141-194, Jacoby, Z., “The Provencal Impact on Crusader Sculpture in

Paliistina-Vereins, 32 (1909), pp. 113-150. Hubatsch, W., “Zur Typologie von Kreuzfahrerburgen im Orient unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Deutschen Ordens,” Acht Jahrhunderte Deutscher Orden in Einzeldarstel-

Jerusalem: More Evidence on the Temple Area Atelier,”

lungen, ed. K. Wieser, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 1, Bad Godesberg, 1967, pp. 57-64. Hunt, L.-A., “Art and Colonialism: The Mosaics of the

Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte, 48 (1985), pp. 442450, Jacoby, Z., “The Tomb of Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem (1185-1186) and the Workshop of the Temple Area,” Gesta,

lem of “Crusader’ Art,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 45 (1991), pp. 69-85. Hunt, L.-A., “A Woman’s Prayer to St Sergios in Latin Syria: Interpreting a Thirteenth-Century Icon at Mount Sinai,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 15 (1991), pp. 96-145. Hunt, L.-A., “Christian-Muslim Relations in Painting in Egypt of the Twelfth to mid-Thirteenth Centuries: Sources of Wallpainting at Deir es-Suriani and the Illustration of the New Testament MS Paris Copte-Arabe 1/Cairo, Bibl. 94,” Cahiers Archéologiques, 33 (1985), pp. 111-155.

Jacoby, Z., “The Workshop of the Temple Area in Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century: Its Origin, Evolution and Impact,” Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte, 45 (1982), pp. 325-394.

Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (1169) and the Prob-

Hunt, L.-A., “Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, and Crusader Wall-

painting of the Mid-Twelfth Century,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp- 191-214. Hunt, L.-A., “The Syriac Buchanan Bible in Cambridge: Book Illumination in Syria, Cilicia and Jerusalem in the Later Twelfth Century,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 57 (1991),

pp. 331-369. Hussey, J.M., “The Later Macedonians, the Comneni and the Angeli: 1025-1204,” Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV, pt. 1, ed. J.M. Hussey, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1966, pp. 193-249.

Huygens, R.B.C., “Guillaume de Tyr étudiant. Un chapitre

(XIX, 12) de son *Histoire’ retrouvé,” Latomus, XXI (1962),

pp- 811-829.

18 (1979), pp. 3-14.

Jager, R., “Die Bronzetiiren von Bethlehem,” Jahrbuc h des

deutschen archiologischen Institutes, 45 (1930), pp. 91-115.

James, L., and Webb, R., “To Understand Ultimate Things

and Enter Secret Places: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium,” Art History, 14 (1991), pp. 1-17. Johns, C.N., “The Abbey of St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Jerusalem,” Quarterly of the Department of

Antiquities, Palestine, 8 (1939), pp. 117-136.

Johns, C.N., “The Attempt to Colonize Palestine and Syria in

the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, 21 (1934), pp. 288-300.

Johns, C.N., “The Citadel of Jerusalem: A Summary of Work

since 1934,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities, Palestine, 14 (1950), pp. 121-190.

Johns, C.N., “Excavations at Pilgrim’s Castle (-Atlit),” Quar-

terly of the Department of Antiquities, Palestine, I-IV (1932-1938).

Joranson, E., “The Palestine Pilgrimage of Henry the Lion,”

Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938, pp. 146-196. Juhasz, V., “Las pinturas de los Cruzados en la Basilica de Bélen,” Tierra Santa (1950), pp. 313-318, 349-353.

I Irigoin, J., “La reliure byzantine,” La reliure médiévale, trois con-

férences d’initiation, Paris: Presses de l’Ecole normal e supérieure, 1978, pp. 23-35.

K Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, I., “The Byzantine Knotted Column,”

Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, ed. S. Vryo-

nis, Jr., Byzantina kai Metabyzantina,

J Jacoby, Z., “The Composition of the Nazareth Workshop and the Recruitment of Sculptors for the Holy Land in the Twelfth Century,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, ed. V. Goss and C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo, 1986, pp. 145-159. Jacoby, Z., “Crusader Sculpture in Cairo: Additional Eviden ce on the Temple Area Workshop of Jerusalem,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp. 121-138. Jacoby, Z., “The Medieval Doors of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem,” Le Porte di Bronzo dall’antichita al secolo

Undena Publications, 1985, pp- 95-104.

vol. 4, Malibu:

Katsimbinis, C., “The Uncovering of the Eastern Side of the

Hill of Calvary and Its Base: New Lay-out of the Area of the Canons’ Refectory by the Greek Orthodox Patriar-

chate,” Liber Annuus, 27 (1977), pp. 197-208. Kedar, B.Z., “The Battle of Hattin Revisited,” Te Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem, 1992, pp. 190-207.

Kedar, B., “Genoa’s Golden Inscription in the Church of the

Holy Sepulchre: A Case for the Defense,” I Com» Italiani nel

Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme, ed. G. Airaldi and G. Kedar,

Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, 48, Genoa, 1986, pp. 319-335.

Kedar, B.Z., “The Patriarch Heraclius,” Outremer, ed. B.Z. Kedar et al., Jerusalem, 1982, pp. 177-204.

Kenaan, N., “Local Christian Art in Twelfth Century Jerusalem,’ israel Exploration Journal, 23 (1973), pp. 167-175

221-229

LaMonte, J.L., “To What Extent Was the Byzantine Empire

the Suzerain of the Latin Crusader States?,” Byzantion, 7

;

Kenaan-Kedar, N., “The Cathedral of Sebaste: Its Western Donors and Models,” The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalc m, 1992, pp. 99-120.

(1932), pp. 243-264.

i

Lane, A., “Medieval finds at Al Mina in North Syria,” Archae-

ologia, 87 (1938), pp. 19-78.

:

Langendorf, J.J. and Zimmermann, G., “Trois Monuments

Kenaan-Kedar, N., “Symbolic Meaning in Crusader Architecture:

Inconnus des Croisés; I. La Chapelle du Chateau de Montréal, Jordanie, II. L’'Octagone du Chateau de Tripoli, Liban,

The Twelfth-Century Dome of the Holy Sepulcher Church in Jerusalem,” Cahiers Archéologiques, 34 (1986), pp. 109-117. Kitzinger, E., “The Byzantine Contribution to Western Art of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Dumbarton Oaks

III. La Forteresse de Séléfke, Turquie,” Genava, 12 (1964),

pp. 125-165. Lauffray, J., “Forums et Monuments de Béryte: II. Le Niveau

Papers, 20 (1966), pp. 25-48. Kitzinger, E., “Byzantium and the West in the Second Half of

the Twelfth Century: Problems of Stylistic Relationships,”

Médiévale,” Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, 8 (1946-1948), pp. 7-14.

Lawrence, A.W., “The Castle of Baghras,” The Cilician King-

Gesta, IX (1970), pp. 49-56.

dom of Armenia, ed. T.S.R. Boase, New York: St. Martin's

Kloner, A., and Chen, D., “Bet Govrin: Crusader Church and Fortifications,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 2 (1983), pp. 12-13.

Kohler, C., “Un rituel et un bréviaire du Saint-Sépulchre de Jérusalem (XIle-XIle siécle),” Mélanges pour servir a Vhistoire de

l‘Orient Latin et des Croisades, vol. Il, Paris, 1906, pp. 286-372. Kohler, W., “Byzantine Art in the West,” Dumbarton Oaks

Papers, 1 (1941), pp. 61-87.

Kétzsche, L., “Zwei Jerusalemer Pilgerampullen aus der Kreuzfahrerzeit,” Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte, 51 (1988), pp. 13-32.

Krautheimer, R., “Introduction to an “Iconography of Mediaeval Architecture,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 5 (1942), pp. 1-20. Kiihnel, B., “Crusader Sculpture at the Ascension Church on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem,” Gesta, XVI (1977), pp. 41-50.

Kiihnel, B., “The Date of the Crusader Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives,” (in Hebrew), Jerusalem in the Middle Ages: Selected Papers, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-

Zvi, 1979, pp. XXV-XXVI (English summary). Kiihnel, B., “The Kingly Statement of the Bookcovers of

Queen Melisende’s Psalter,” Tesserae, Festschrift fiir Josef

Press, 1978, pp. 34-83. Lehmann, K., “The Dome of Heaven,” Art Bulletin, 27 (1945), pp. 1-27. Leroy, J., “Découvertes de peintures chrétiennes en Syrie,” Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes, 25 (1975), pp.

95-112. Lindner, M., “Topography and Iconography in Twelfth-Century Jerusalem,” The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem, 1992, pp. 81-98. Lipinsky, A., “Sizilianische Goldschmiedekunst im Zeitalter der Normannen und Staufer,” Das Miinster, 10 (1957), pp. 158-186. Loerke, W.C., “The Miniatures of the Trial in the Rossano Gospels,” Art Bulletin, 43 (1961), pp. 171-195.

Lyman, T.W., “The Counts of Toulouse, the Reformed Canons and the Holy Sepulcher,” The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem, 1992, pp. 63-80. M

MacMullen, R., “The Emperor’s Largesses,” Latomus, 21

Christentum,

(1962), pp. 159-166. Maguire, H., “The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine

Kiihnel, B., “Der Rankenfries am Portal der Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem und die romanische Skulptur in den

Art,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 31 (1975), pp- 123-174. Maguire, H., “Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descrip-

Engemann,

Jahrbuch

fiir Antike

und

Erganzungsband 18, 1991, pp. 340-357.

Abbruzzen,” Arte Medievale, 2nd ser., 1 (1987), pp- 87-121.

Kiihnel, B., “Steinmetzen aus Fontevrault in Jerusalem: eine Bauplastikwerkstatt der Kreuzfahrerzeit,” Wiener Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, 33 (1980), pp. 83-97. Kiihnel, G., “Das Ausschmiickungsprogramm der Gerburtsbasilika in Bethlehem. Byzance und Abendland im K6nigreich Jerusalem,” Boreas, 10 (1987), pp. 133-149.

Kiihnel, G., “Neue Feldarbeiten zur musivischen und malerischen Ausstattung der Geburts-Basilika in Bethlehem,” Kunstchronik, 37 (1984), pp. 507-513. Kiihnel, G., “Wiederentdecke monastische Malereien der Kreuzfahrerzeit in der Judaischen Wiiste,” Rémische Quar-

talschrift, 29 (1984), pp. 163-188. L

LaMonte, J.L., “The Significance of the Crusaders’ States in Medieval History,” Byzantion, 15 (1940-1941), pp- 300-315.

tions of Works of Art,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 28 (1974),

pp. 111-140. Marschak, B.I., “Zur Toreutik der Kreuzfahrer,” Metalkunst von der Spiitantike bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter, ed. A. Effenberger, Berlin, 1982, pp. 166-184. Martin, J.PP., “Les premiers princes croisés et les Syriens jacobites de Jérusalem,” Journal Asiatique, 8eme sér., XII, (1888), pp- 471-490, XIII (1889), pp- 33-79.

Mayer, H.E., and Favreau, MLL., “Das Diplom Balduins I. fiir Genua und Genuas goldene Inschrift in der Grabeskirche,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 55- 56 (1976), pp- 22-95. of Mayer, H.E., “Angevins versus Normans: The New Men Philoan Americ the of ings Proceed em,” Jerusal of Fulk King sophical Society, 133 (1989), pp- 1-25. of King Amalric of Jerusalem,” Beginni Mayer, H.E., “The

pp. The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem, 1992, 121-135.

Mayer, H.E., “The Concordat of Nablus,” Journal of Ecclesiasti-

hoards and stray finds from the time of the Crusades,” Ham.

cal History, 33 (1982), pp. 531-543.

burger Beitrige zur Numismatik, 22-23 (19681969), pp. 433-470, Metcalf, D.M., “Three Recent Parcels of Helmet Deniers of

Mayer, H.E., “Fontevrault und Bethanien, Kirchliches Leben

in Anjou und Jerusalem im 12. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift fiir

Bohemund III of Antioch Concealed at about the Time of Saladin’s Conquests,” Coinage in the Latin East, ed. PW. Edbury and D.M. Metcalf, Oxford, 1980, pp- 137-145, Meurer, H., “Kreuzreliquiare aus Jerusalem, ” Jahrbuch der

Kirchengeschichte, 102 (1991), pp. 144.

Mayer, H.E., “Guillaume de Tyr a l’école,” Mémoires de lAcademie des sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Dijon,127 (1985-19 86),

pp- 257-265. Mayer, H.E., “Henry II of England and the Holy Land,” English Historical Review, 97 (1982), pp. 721-739. Mayer, H.E., “Die Hofkapelle der K6nige von Jerusalem,”

Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen

(1976), pp. 7-17.

Meurer, H., “Zu den Staurotheken der Kreuz fahrer, Zeitschrift

fiir Kunstgeschichte, 48 (1985), pp. 65-76.

Deutsches Archiv fiir Erforschung des Mittelalters, 44 (1988),

Miller, T.S., “The Knights of Saint John and the Hospitals of the Latin West,” Speculum, 53 (1978), pp. 709-73 3. Morris, C., “Policy and Visions: The Case of the Holy Lance at Antioch,” War and Government in the Middle Ages, Essays

pp. 489-509.

Mayer, H.E., “Jérusalem et Antioche au Temps de Baudou in Il,” Comptes-rendus des séances de I'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, (1980), pp. 717-734. Mayer, H.E., “Latins, Muslims and Greeks in the Latin King-

in Honour of J.O. Prestwich, ed. J. Gilli ngham and J.C. Holt,

Bury St. Edmunds, 1984, pp. 33-45.

dom of Jerusalem,” History, 63 (1978), pp. 175-192 .

Mouriki, D., “Icons from the 12th to the 15th Century,” Sinai:

Mayer, H.E., “Das Pontifikale von Tyrus und die Krénung der Lateinischen Kénige von Jerusalem,” Dumbarton Oaks

Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, ed. K.A. Manafis, Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1990, pp. 102-124. Mouriki, D., “Thirteenth-Century Icon Painting in Cyprus,” The Griffon, n.s., 1-2 (1985-1986), pp. 9-112.

Papers, 21 (1967), pp. 141-232.

Mayer, H.E., “Sankt Samuel auf dem Freudenber ge und sein Besitz nach einem unbekannten Diplom Kénigs Balduins V.,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und

Bibliotheken, 44 (1964), pp. 35-71. Mayer, H.E., “Die Stiftung Herzog Heinrichs des Lowen fiir das HI. Grab,” Heinrich der Lowe, ed. W-D. Mohrm ann, G6ttingen:

Muratova, X., “Western Chronicles of the First Crusade as

Sources for the History of Art in the Holy Land, ” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp. 47-70.

Muthesius, A., “The Silk over the Spine of the Mondsee

Gospel Lectionary,” Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 37 (1978), pp. 51-73.

Vanddenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980, pp- 307-330.

Mayer, H.E., “Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of

Jerusalem,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 26 (1972), pp. 93-182.

Mayer, H.E., “The Succession to Baldw in II of Jerusalem:

English Impact on the East,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 39

(1985), pp. 139-147. Mayer, H.E., “Das syrische Erdbeben von 1170: Ein unedierter brief Kénig Amalrichs von Jerusalem,” Deutsches Archiv fiir Erforschung des Mittelalters , 45 (1989), pp. 474484. Mayer, H.E., “Zur Geschichte der Johan niter im 12. Jahrhun-

dert,” Deutsches Archiv fiir Erforschung des Mittelalters, 47

N

Narkiss, B., “Illuminated Manuscripts in the Kingd om of Cilicia,” Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem, ed. B. Narkiss and M. Stone, Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1979, pp. 4146.

Nelson, R.S., “An Icon at Mt. Sinai and Christian Painting in Muslim Egypt During the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” Art Bulletin, 65 (1983), pp. 201-218.

Norman, J.S., “The Life of King David as a Psychomachia

Allegory: A Study of the Melisende Psalter Book Cover,”

(1991), pp. 139-159.

University of Ottawa Quarterly, 50 (1981), pp. 193-201.

McGinn, B., “Iter Sancti Sepulchri: The Piety of the First Crusaders,” Essays on Medieval Civilization: The Walter Prescott Webb

Memorial Lectures, ed., B.K. Lackner and K.R. Philip, Austin

and London: University of Texas Press, 1978, pp. 33-72. Megaw, A.HS., “Twelfth Century Frescoes in Cyprus,” Actes du XIle Congres International d'Etudes Byzant ines, vol. III, Belgrade, 1964, pp. 257-266. de Mely, F., “La Croix des Premiers Croisés — La Sainte Lance — La Sainte Couronne,” Exuviae Sacrae Consta ntinopolitanae, IIL, Paris, 1904, pp. 23-163. Metcalf, D.M., “Billon Coinage of the Crusa ding Principality of Antioch,” Numismatic Chronicle, ser. 7, IX (1969), pp.

247-267.

Metcalf, D.M., “Coinage of the Crusades:

Some New

in Baden-Wiirttemberg, 13

O Ousterhout, R., “The Church of Santo Stefano : A jerusalem’

in Bologna,” Gesta, XX (1981), pp. 311-321.

Ousterhout, R., “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Mono-

machus and the Holy Sepulchre,” Journal of tli Societ y of

Architectural Historians, 48 (1989), pp. 66-78.

Ousterhout, R., “Santo Stefano e Gerusalemm e,” Stefaniana: Contributi per la storia del complesso di S. Stefan c in Bologna,

Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Province di Romagna,

Documenti et studi, XVII (1985), pp131-358. Ousterhout, R., “The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Mar-

tyrion of the Savior,” Gesta, 29 (1990), pp. 44-53.

Hoards,” Numismatic Chronicle, ser. 7, 147 (1987), pp. 84-92. Metcalf, D.M., “Coinage of the Latin King dom of Jerusalem

Ovadiah, A., “A Crusader Church in the Jewish Quarter of

Jerusalem,” (in Hebrew) Eretz Israel: I. Dunay evsky

in the Name of Baudouin,” Numismatic Chronicle, ser. 7, 18

Volume, XI (1973), pp. 208-212.

(1978), pp. 71-84. Metcalf, D.M., “Coins of Lucca, Valence, and Antioch: Some new

Memorial

Ovadiah, A., “A Restored Complex of the 12th Century ; in Jerusalem,” Actes du XVe Congrés International d'Etudes

632

Byzanti?

Art et Archéologie: B. Communications, Athens,

1981, P

Jerusalem,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, pp. 1063-1118.

390.

Ovadiah, Quarte

\ Restored Crusader Church in the Jewish stian News from Israel, 25 (1975), pp. 150-153.

29

(1951 omy

Prawer, J., “History of the Crusader Castle Kaukab al-Hawa (in Hebrew) Israel Exploration Journal, 31 (1967), pp. 236-249

Prawer, J., “The Jerusalem the Crusaders Captured

P Pace, V., certez librari:

ibbia ~Bizantina’ de San Daniele del Friuli: le un enigma (Per la storia della produzione \’‘Occidente mediterraneo all’alba del ‘200),”

Miniatu

Friuli Crocevia di Civilta, Pordenone: Grafiche

Artistiche Pordenonesi, 1987, pp. 71-81. e la sculptura ‘franca’ del XII Pace, V., “{ capitelli di Nazaret L secolo a Gerusalemme,” Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Roberto Salvini, Florence, 1984, pp. 87-95.

bution to the Medieval 1 Topography of the City i and Settlement, ed. P.W. Edbury, Cardiff, 1985, pp. 1-16 Prawer, J., “The Roots of Medieval Colonialism,” The Meeting

of Two Worlds, eds. V. Goss and C.V. Bornstein, Kalz 1986, pp. 23-38. Prawer, J., “Social Classes in the Latin Kingdom:

Editoriali

Pace, V. angeliar,” Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: Liturgie und Andacht in Mittelalter, Stuttgart und Zurich: Belser Verlag, 1992,

and London, 1985, pp. 117-192. Prinet,

C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo, 1986, pp. 331-345. Pace, V., “Italy and the HolyLand: Import-Export, 2. The

Case of Apuliia,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp. 245-269. Paeseler, W., “Giotto’s Navicella und ihr spatantikes Vorbild,” Rémtisches Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, V (1941), pp. 49-162. Peeters, P., “La légende de Saidnaia,” Analecta Bollandiana, 25

(1906), pp. 137-155.

Pesant, R., “The Amalricus Coins of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Coinage in the Latin East, ed. P.W. Edbury and

DM. Metcalf, Oxford, 1980, pp. 105-121.

Pesant, R., “Comments on the Attribution of a Rare Coin of the Latin ‘ Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Israel Numismatic Journal,

8 (1984 Pesant, R.,

985), pp- 84-85. “The Effigy on the Coins of Tancred of Antioch,”

Numismatic Circular, 89 (1981), pp. 234-235. Philipps 7 oe Orient chrétien et des reliquaires médiévaux en crisial de roche et en verre conservés en Belgique,” Bul-

n stitut archéologique liégeois, 86 (1974), pp. 245-289. letin “Basilica del Santo Sepolcro: I Lintelli MedioeM., Piccirilio, del Portale,” La Terra Santa, 45 (1969), pp. 106-117. vali

{., “L’Edicola Crociata sulla Tomba della

Picci Mad Picciri

”

‘Notre Dame de Tortose,” Syria, X (1929), pp-

40-

Plommer, H., “The Cenacle on Mount Sion,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda, Oxford, 1982, pp- 139-166. Porteous,

Num

l’origine

orientale

des

armolries

Archit

Crusader Courtyard Building,” The Horns of Hattin, ed. B.Z. Kedar

Jerusalem, 1992, pp. 147-167. Pringle, D., “Church-Building

in Palestine before the Cru-

sades,” Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century,

ed.

J. Folda

Oxford, 1982, pp. 546. Pringle, D., “Crusader Castles: The First Generation,” Fortress, 1 (1989), pp. 14-25. Pringle, D., “Les édifices ecclésiastiques du royaume latin de

Jérusalem: Une liste provisoire,” Revue Biblique

89 (1982),

pp- 92-98. Pringle, D., “The Medieval Pottery of Palestine and Transjor-

dan (A.D. 636-1500): An Introduction, Gazetteer and Bibliography,” Medieval Ceramics, 5 (1981), pp. 45-60. Pringle, D., “The Planning of Some Pilgrimage Churches in

Crusader Palestine,” World Archaeology, 18 (1987), pp. 341-362. Pringle, D., “Pottery as Evidence for Trade in1 the Speco States,” I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemm ed. G. Airaldi and B.Z. Kedar, Collana Storica di Fonti e

Studi, 48, Genoa, 1986, pp. 449-475. Pringle, D., “Some Approaches to the Study of Crusader Masonry 173-199.

Marks

in Palestine,” Levant,

13 (1981), pp.

Q Numismatic du Quesne-Bird, N., “Notes on Crusader Coins,” Circular, 76 (1968), p. 337.

Liber Annuus, XXII (1972), pp- 291-314.

N i , “Frammenti di sculture crociate a Betania,” La

Terra Santa, 44(1968), pp. 325-330.

Pillet

“De

fiir Heraldik, 26 (1912), pp. 53-58. Pringle, D., “Aqua-Bella: The Interpretation of a

rence: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1979, pp. 131-157.

Pace, V., “Italy and the Holy Land: Import-Export, 1. The Case of Venice,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, ed. V. Goss and

M.,

européennes,” Archives Héraldiques Suisses/Schweizer

pp. 154-157, no. 29.

Pace, V., “Un “ipotesi per la storia della produzione libraria Italo-Meridionale: La Bibbia “Bizantina’ di San Daniele del Friuli,” La Miniatura Italiana in Eta Romanico e Gotica, Flo-

the Franks

A History of the Crusades, ed. K.M. Setton, vol. V, Madison

R Holy Sepulchre Rahmani, L.Y., “The Eastern Lintel of the 9. 120-12 pp. (1976), 26 , Journal n ratio Israel Explo Regis’ Coins Found Rahmani, L.Y., “Two Hoards of “Moneta Journal, 4 (1980), pp in Northern Israel,” Israel Numismatic

J., “The Early Coinage of the Counts of Edessa,”

72-—76.

fils metalliques van Regemorter, B., “Note sur l'emploi de

tic Chronicle, 7th ser., 15 (1975), pp- 169-182.

dans le tranchefile,” Scriptortum

“The Armenians in Jerusalem under the Cru” Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed. M. Stone, 5 Batten ae pee 1976, pp. 222-236. Prawer, J.,“Colonization Activities in the Latin Kingdom of

Prawer,

15 (1961), pp. 327-328

l'église de Bethiéem Riant, P., “Une dépendance Italienne de ieta Ligure di Varazze en Ligurie (1139-1424),” Atti Storia

foWwWw

05 Patria, XVI, fasc. Il (1886), pp 545-7

Riant, P,, “Eclaircissements sur quelques points de l'histoire de l’église de Bethléem-Ascalon,” Revue de I‘Orient Latin, I

(1893), pp. 140-160, 381412, 475-525, II (1894), pp- 35-72. Riant, P., “Le Martyre de Thiemo de Salzburg,” Revue des questions historiques, 39 (1906), pp. 218-237. Richard, J., “Le Chartrier de Sainte-Marie-Latine et l’établisse-

ment de Raymond de Saint-Gilles 4 Mont-Pélerin,” Mélanges Louis Halphen, Paris, 1951, pp. 605-612.

Richard, J., “Quelque textes sur les premiers temps de |’Eglise

latin de Jérusalem,” Recueil de Travaux offerts a M. Clovis Brunel, 2 vols., Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société

de l’Ecole de Chartres, 12, vol. 2, Paris, 1955, pp. 420-430.

Richmond, E.T., “Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Note on a Recent Discovery,” Quarterly of the Department ofAntiquities, Palestine, 1 (1931-1932), pp. 1-2.

Riley-Smith, J., “The Latin Clergy and the Settlement in Palestine

and Syria,” Catholic Historical Review, 74 (1988), pp. 539-557. Riley-Smith, J., “Peace Never Established: The Case of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 28 (1978), pp. 87-102. Riley-Smith, J., “The Templars and the Castle of Tortosa in Syria: An Unknown Document Concerning the Acquisition of the Fortress,” English Historical Review, 84 (1969), pp. 278-288.

Riley-Smith, J., “The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon,” Bulletin of

the Institute of Historical Research, 52 (1979), pp. 83-86. Rosen-Ayalon, M., “Art and Architecture in Ayyub id Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal, 40 (1990), pp- 308-314 .

Rosen-Ayalon, M., “The Facade of the Holy Sépulch re,” Riv-

ista degli Studi Orientali, 59 (1985), pp. 289-296. Rosen-Ayalon, M., “Une mosaique médiévale au Saint-S épulcre,” Revue Biblique, 83 (1976), pp. 237-253.

Ruckert, R., “Zur Form der byzantinischen Reliqu iare,” Miinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst,” 3. folge, Bd. 8

(1975), pp. 7-36.

Rudt de Collenberg, W.-H., “Les premiers Ibelins,” Moyen Age, 71 (1965), pp. 433-474. Runciman, S., “The Crown of Jerusalem,” Palesti ne Exploration

Quarterly, 92 (1960), pp. 8-18.

Runciman, S., “The Holy Lance found at Antioc h,” Analecta

Bollandiana, 68 (1970), pp. 197-209.

Runciman, S., “The Visit of King Amalric I to Constantinople in 1171,” Outremer, ed. B.Z. Kedar et al., Jerusalem, 1982,

pp. 153-158.

Saunders, W.B.R., “The Aachen Reliquary of Eustathius Maleinus, 969-970,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 36 (1982), Pp.

211-219.

Savignac, R., and Abel, F.-M., “Neby Samouil,” Revue Biblique

n.s. 9 (1912), pp. 267-279.

Schick, C., “Plan der heiligen Grabeski rche und Umgebung,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Paliistina-Vereins, 8 (1885 ), after p. 340,

Schick, C., “Plan of Underground of the Whole Muristan or

Hospital of the Knight’s St. John at Jerusalem,” Palest Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1902, pp. 42-56, ine Schlumberger, G., “Neuf sceaux de l’Orie nt Latin,” Revue de l'Orient Latin, 2 (1894), pp. 177-182. Schénfelder, A., “Die Prozessionen der Latein er in Jerusalem zur Zeit der Kreuzziige,” Historisches Jahrbuch, 32 (1911),

pp. 578-586.

Seidel, L., “Images of the Crusades in Western Art: Models as

Metaphors,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, eds. V. Goss and

C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo, 1986, pp. 377-391.

Seltman, AJ., “A Coin of the Crusades,” Numismatic Circular,

75 (1967), pp. 234-235, Seltman, A.J., “Coins of the Crusades,” Numismatic Circular,

74 (1966), pp. 32-33.

Shepherd, D.G., “An Icon of the Virgin: A Sixth -Century Tapestry Panel from Egypt,” Bulletin of the Clevel and Museum of Art, 56 (1969), pp. 90-120.

Smail, R.C., “The International Status of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1150-1192,” The Eastern Mediterranea n Lands in the

Period ofthe Crusades, ed. PM. Holt, Warminster, 1977, pp. 23-43. Smail, R.C., “The Predicaments of Guy de Lusig nan,

1183-1187,” Outremer, ed. B.Z. Kedar et al., Jerusalem, 1982,

pp. 159-176.

Spaer, A., “Two Crusader Oboles,” Numismatic Chronicle, 142

(1982), pp. 160-161.

Spaer, A., “Two Rare Crusader Coins of the Latin Kingdo m of Jerusalem,” Numismatic Chronicle, 137 (1977), pp. 184-186 . Stager, L., and Esse, D., “Ashkelon — 1985 /1986,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 5 (1986), pp. 5-6.

Stager, L., “Eroticism and Infanticide at Ashkeion,” Ashkelon

Discovered, Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society,

1991, pp. 39-57.

Stahl, A., “The Circulation of European Coinage in the Crusader States,” The Meeting of Two Worlds, eds. C.V. Bornstein, Kalamazoo, 1986, pp. 85-102.

V. Goss and

Steele, R., “Dies Aegyptiaci,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of

S

Medicine, Section of the History of Medicine, XII, no. 8

Saadé, G., “Le chateau de Bourzey, forter esse oubliée,” Les

Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes, 6 (1956), pp. 139-162. Sabine, CJ., “The Billon and Copper Coinage of the Crusader

(1919), pp. 108-121.

Stern, H., “Encore les Mosaiques de I’Eglise de la Nativité a

Bethléem,” Cahiers Archéologiques, 9 (1957), pp. 141-145. Stern, H., “Nouvelles recherches sur les images des Conciles

dans l’Eglise de la Nativité a Bethléem,” Cahiers

County of Tripoli, c. 1102-1268,” Numismatic Chronicle, ser.

Archéologiques, 3 (1948), pp. 82-105.

7, 20 (1980), pp. 71-112.

Stern, H., “Les Représentations des Conciles dans l’Eglise de

Sabine, CJ., “The Crusader ~Turris Davit’ Coina ge: Adden-

la Nativité a Bethléem,” Byzantion, 11 (1936), pp. 101-152.

dum,” Numismatic Chronicle, 7th ser., 21 (1981) , pp. 156-158.

Stern, H., “Les Représentations des Conciles dans lEglise de la Nativité 4 Bethléem,” 28me partie: “Les inscriptions, Byzantion, 13 (1938), pp. 415-459. Stratford, N., “Le Mausolée de saint Lazare a Autun,” and

Sabine, C.J., “The Turris Davit Coinage and the Regency of Raymond III of Tripoli (1184-6),” Numismatic Chronicle, 7th

ser., 18 (1978), pp. 85-92. Salmi, M., “Il tesoro della chiesa del Santo Sepolcro a Barletta,” Dedalo, 4 (1923-1924), pp. 87-98.

“Postscriptum: Un groupe de sculptures “rhodaniennes a Autun,” Le Tombeau de Saint Lazare et la sculpture romane a

634

:

és Gislebertus, Autun: Musée Rolin, 1985, p P2-130. “Aus dem Kunstkreis Heinrichs des Lowen,”

Sy

much, VII-VII (1932), pp. 241-397.

T

Sulla conversione della chiesa di Sant’Anna a emme

nelle Madrasa

as-Salahiyya,” Rivista degli

tali, 43 (1968), pp. 327-354.

}

T

|., “A Historiated Tree of Jesse,” Dumbarton pp. 125-176. Se

Tch

er, / \., “Romanesque Sculpted Archivolts in West-

Oaks

Arte Medievale, 2nd ser., anno III (1989), pp. The

“The Wall Mosaics in the Church of the Nativ ity, Beth chem,” Actes du XVe Congres International d'Etudes s, IIB, Art et archéologie, Athens, 1981, pp. 891-900.

\

Vasiliev, A.A., “Imperial Porphyry Sarcophagi in Constantinople,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 4 (1948), pp. 1-26. Viaud, P., “Fouilles récentes pratiquées dans |’église de Sainte-Anne, a Séphoris,” Nazareth et ses deux églises de l'Anition et de Saint-Joseph, Paris, 1910, pp. 179-184. -Troiekouroff, M., “Sirénes-Poissons Carolingien” Cahiers Archéologiques, 19 (1969), pp. 61-82. Vincent, H. and E.-M. Abel, “L’Etat de la cité de Jérusalem au XIle siécle,” Jerusalem 1920-1922: Being the Records of the

Pro-Jerusalem Council during the First Two Years of the Civil

nistration, ed. C.R. Ashbee, London, 1924, pp. 3240. de Vogiié, M.C., “Achard d’Arrouaise, Poéme sur le ~Temn Domini,’” Archives de l’Orient Latin, 1 (1881), pp. de

Vogiié, M.C., “La Citerne de Ramleh et le tracé des Arcs Ss,” Mémoires de l'Institut National de France: Académie re et Belles-Lettres, 39 (1914), pp. 163-180. , M.C., “Monnaies inédites des croisades,” Revue natique, 2eme sér., X (1865), p. 297ff.

Z

Willis, R., “An Architectural History of th e Holy Sepulchre,” in G. Willi

he

H

ed., London, 1849, pp. 129-27¢ 4 de Winter, P., “The Sacral Treasure of the Guelphs the Cleveland Museum of

Woodward, D., “Medieval

>t

72 (1985)

AVappaemi

pp

i,”

2-160

The History of Cartog

raphy, ed. J.B. Harley and D. Cecteraed oy LCiiteso and London: Univ ersity of Chicago Press, 1987,

, M., “Les Broderies d’Or,” Splendeur de Byzance,

s, 1982, pp. 220-224.

T:

The Cult of the True Cross, Adc ymnan letin, 72 (1990), pp. 174-223. vc n Wilckens, L., “Zur Verw endung von 0. bis 14. Jahrhunderts in Bucheinbanden Kunstgeschichte, 53 (1990), pp. Wilkinson, J., “The Tomb of Christ tural History,” t, 4(1972)

PP- 286-37 3/U.

Y Yvon, J., “Les ee de Roger d’Antioche au type de S Georges,” Bulletin de la Société francaise de Numismatique 21éme année (1966), pp. 29-30. Yvon, J., “Monnaies et sceaux de I’Orient Latin,” Revui Numismatique, 6&me sér., 8 (1966), pp. 92-97

6. Secondary Studies: Reviews Bahat, D., review of V. Corbo, II Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme Jerusalem, 1981, “Does the Holy a. hre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus?,” Biblical Archeology Review, 12 (1986), pp. 26-45.

Burgoyne, M. and Folda, J review of Buschhausen, H., D stiditalienische Bauplast ik im |} onigreicn ler usaiem Vienna, 1978, for the Art Bulletin, 63 (1981), pp. 321-324. Demus, O., review of A History of the Crusades, vol. IV, in the Art Bulletin, 61 (1979), pp. 636-637. Fabbri, N.R., review of Buschhausen, H., Die siidit Bauplastik im Konigreich Jerusalem, Vienna, 1978, for Specu-

V

)., “Crusader Sculpture from the Holy Land in Istan-

lum,55 (1980), pp. 537-539. Horden, P., review of T.S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire, Baltimore, 1985, in ‘A pects of Relevance: The Historiography of the Later Medieval Hospital,” Social History of Me edicine, I (1988), pp. 365-369. Jacoby, Z., review of Buschhausen, H., Die suditaieni siiditalienische B plastik im Koénigreich Jerusale 2/1) Vienna, 197

Watson,

sta, 8 (1969), pp. 20-29. A.M., “Back to Gold — and Silver,” Economic History

Ousterhout, R., review of V. Cheb: Il

de

\

ser. 2, XX (1967),),pp. 1-34.

W

nann, K,’ ‘Icon Painting in the Latin Kingdom,” Dumb-

Oaks Papers, 20 (1966), pp. 49-84. Weitzmann, K., “Loca Sancta and the Representational Arts of Palestine,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 28 (1974), pp. 31-55. Weitzmann,

K., “Thirteenth Century Crusader Icons on

yunt Sinai,” Art Bulletin, XLV (1963), pp. 179-203. Weitzmann, K., “Various Aspects of Byzantine Influence on > Latin Countries from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century,” mbarton Oaks Papers, 20 (1966), pp. 1-24. Werner “The Cross-Carpet Page in the Book of Durrow:

Zeitschrift fiir Kunstge: schi

Gerusalemme,

h te

47 (1984), pp. 400-403 Santo

Sepolcro

Jerusalem,

So 1981, in Journal « Architectural Historians, 43 (1984), pp. 2 66-267. Pace, V., “Sculpture italienne en terre sainte ou sculpture des

croisés en Italie?

A propos d’un livre récent,” Cahiers

d

Civilisation Médiévale, XXVII (1984), pp. 253-257. Salet, F., “Chronique: Le portail de l’église de l’annonciation a Nazareth,” Bulleti n Monumental LCXL IQ 1983), PP. 312 313 and te thé zareth Capital S and Williamson, P., review of J. Folda iation, University Park and Crusader Church of the A London, 934-935.

1986, in Burlin

Magazine,

3( (1989) 1 20

pp

Bibliographic Addendum

In the spring of 1993, when this book was accepted by

H. Nicholson,

Cambridge University Press, the first volume of an

Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128-1291, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1993. R. Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare in the Twelfth Century, Oxford Historical Monographs, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. The Rule of the Templars, trans. J.M. Upton-Ward, London: Boydell and Brewer, 1992, with an appendix by M. Bennett. M. Shatzmiller, ed., Crusaders and Muslims in TwelfthCentury Syria, Leiden: Brill, 1993.

important corpus of Crusader churches appeared: Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. I, A-K (excluding Acre and Jerusalem),

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, with drawings by PE. Leach. I have made every effort to incorporate the main findings of Pringle’s work to date, even though it has not been possible to include all details. In the intervening period from 1993 to 1994, when production began on this book, a number of other

Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic

Y. Tsafrir, Ancient Churches Revealed. ed. Y. Tsafrir,

important works have come to my attention that I have not been able to incorporate in this study but that will be of interest to readers of this book:

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993 (archeological findings on certain Crusader churches are included by region).

M. Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. H. Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, trans. E. Jephcott, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Readers who wish to continue to update the bibliography in this volume may consult the Bulletin of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, published annually, usually in the late summer of the year, along with the relevant sections in the bibliographical supplements published regularly in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift and Byzantinoslavica. As production started on my book, a new study by Bianca Kiihnel was announced in the spring 1994 catalogue of Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin: Crusader Art of the Twelfth Century: A Geographical, an Historical, or an Art-Historical Notion?. As of today, Dr. Kiihnel’s book is not yet available, but when it is published and distributed, it will also be of interest to readers of this book.

M. Biddle, “The Tomb of Christ: Sources, Methods and

a New Approach,” in Churches Built in Ancient Times. Recent Studies in Early Christian Archaeology. K. Painter, ed., London: Society of Antiquaries, 1994, pp. 73-147.

M. Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. N. Kenaan-Kedar, “A Neglected Series of Crusader

Sculpture: The Ninety-Six Corbels of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” Israel Exploration Journal, 42 (1992), pp. 103-114. (see ch. 7, nt. 53, above.) H. Kennedy, Crusader Castles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Jaroslav Folda

Chapel Hill July 15, 1994

A.G. Malloy, LF. Preston, and AJ. Seltman, Coins of the Crusader States, 1098-1291, New York: Attic Books, 1994.

637

General Index

Abbey of Carboeiro Cross reliquary, 293, 392, plate 8B.7a—b date of, 581n240

Alexandretta

Abruzzi, sculpture of, 227, 541n90

Alexandria, 410

Abu Ghosh, 8, 313 See also Hospitaler Church (Abu Ghosh). Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, 10 Acanthus plant, 596n178

Altarpieces, 291, 299, 560n32, 560n36,

Acanthus sculpture, 82, 205, 212, 266, 404, plate 7.6e-g in Church of the Annunciation, 436, plate 10.61 of Holy Sepulcher, 596n178 origins of, 455, 456 reuse of, 596n184 of Templar workshop, 442, 450, 451,

452, 468 on tomb of Baldwin V, 467, 468 Acre

architecture of, 482n10 High Court at, 472

mint of, 289, 510n58 in Third Crusade, 473 Venetians at, 84 Ager Sanguinis, Battle of, 78 Agnus dei on Barletta reliquary, 168 on coinage, 171, 531n183 Agony, Church of (Gethsemane),

379-80, 579n178 frescoes, 564n117, plate 9.31 Agrigento altar, 291, 560n32, 560n36,

plate 8B.4a-d Ain Kerem, basilica at, 562n93 Aleppo, 409 Baldwin II at, 87 mosque of, 245, 548n193 Saladin’s claim to, 410 siege of (1138), 125

capture of, 25 expulsion of Armenians from, 300 plate 8B.4a-d of Damascus Gate chapel, 381 of Klosterneuburg, 546n164 of Templum Domini, 252 Ampullae, pilgrims,’ 294-97, 336, 477, 546n148 decorative elements of, 297 holy sites on, 409, 568n23, 586n335 three Marys on, 560n42 workshops of, 560n54 Anastasis

on ampullae, 295, plate 8B.9b in Church of the Nativity mosaics,

358 in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 580n197-98, plate 9.34a, plate 9.35f iconography of, 543n118, 544n124 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, 155,

230, 231, 296, 543n112, 543n121 on seals, 172 See also Holy Sepulcher, Church of (Jerusalem): Anastasis mosaic.

Anastasis, Church of. See Holy Sepulcher, Church of (Jerusalem). Anavarza

dungeon of, 53-54 Frankish architecture of, 498n55 Angelica-Fitzwilliam sacramentary,

100-105, 283, 513n97 artist of, 104, 159, 162 Byzantine aspects of, 104, 105 calendar of, 1034, 105, 162, 514n100-101, 524n92, 543n105 date of, 100-101, 104, 158, 162, 514n105

639

initials of, 156, 159 Italian influence on, 104, 105, 162 music in, 514n107 paleographical analysis of, 103, 162, 514n107 Angels of Belvoir castle, 583n280, plate 9.36f in Byzantine art, 570n48—49 in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 352-53, 354, 358, 360, 364, 379, 578n172, plate 9.9, plate 9.22a-b of Damascus Gate chapel, 379 in Paris gospelbook, 346 in portal of Church of the Annunciation, 430, 431, plate 10.4f-¢ of Psalter of Queen Melisende, 379

Angers Cross reliquary, 290-91, 559n28 Ankara, ecumenical council mosaics of, 359 Annunciation

in Damascus Gate chapel, 379 in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 231 in Martorana, Palermo, 379 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate

68a in Twelve Feasts icon, 408 Annunciation, Church of (Nazareth),

318 aedicule, 417-18, 433, 434-35, plate 10.5a—m sculpture of, 430 Annunciation icon of, 433, 594n 166 baldacchino of, 433, 434, 592n115-16, 592n118 bays of, 417, 436, 593n134 capitals, 12, 13, 430, 589n58, plate 10.9 acanthus, 436, 592n130, plate 10.61

Annunciation, Church of (continued)

Battle of Demons and Men, 435, plate 10.6f-h bearded-head, 438, 439 and Belvoir capitals, 438-39 canopies of, 434, 438, 591n109 date of, 439 dimensions of, 592n121, 592n130 and Holy Sepulcher capitals, 437, 438 polygonal, 433-34, 435-36, 455, 591n85, 592n116, 592n121, 592n124, 593n134, 593n137 rectangular, 435, 436, 591n85, 592n130, 593n134 sources of, 439-40, 477 St. James the Greater, 434,

592n124, plate 10.5h-j St. Matthew, 434, 438, plate 10.5k—m St. Peter and Tabitha, 434, 436, 593n134, plate 10.6d-e Virgin, 435, 438, plate 10.6a—c

Chatsworth torso of, 430, 432, 439, 590n66, 591n94, 592n123, plate 10.11b-c Daniel's account of, 64 date of, 588n37 Franciscans at, 415 inscriptions of, 430, 590n65, 590n70, 590n73 masons’ marks of, 417, 589n51 plan, 436, 589n47, 589n55, plate 10.3a—b

portals, 430, 431, 432-33, 455, plate 10.4a-k razing by Baybars, 415, 435 rebuilding of, 414, 415-16, 433, 439, 44041 sculptors of, 436, 439, 440, 476 sculpture, 588n39, 589n60, plate 10.4d, plate 10.10 animal, 431, 590n74 archivolts, 418, 430-31, 590n64, plate 10.4a—c figural, 418-30, 565n130, 583n283, 593n137, 594n155, plate 10.4a-j, plate 10.7-8 Psychomachia in, 435, 436 Romanesque elements of, 436-37, 43940, 593n141, 594n164 voussoirs, 430-31, 590n72, 590n74-75 shrine-grotto of, 417-18, 433, plate

10.3b-c

statue-colonnes of, 430-33, 433, 591n85, 591n106, plate 10.4i-k, plate 10.11a—c stone cross of, 433 tympanum, 431, plate 10.4d-g workshop of, 417, 437, 439, 452 Antichrist, 44 Antioch, plate 2.2a cathedral of, 28, 519n30 Crusaders’ siege of, 26-27, 486n19

destruction of monuments in, 54 First Crusade at, 25, 26-27

indigenous Christians of, 490n12 Antioch, Principality of artistic activities in, 466, 476, 599n262

Baldwin II's regency of, 78, 82, 83 Baldwin III's defense of, 300-301, 543n107

Byzantine hegemony over, 124 castles of, 8, 12

coinage of, 41, 51-52, 88-89, 531n183,

559n22, plate 3.8, plate 5.6-8 bezants, 171 billon deniers, 559n22, 599n264,

plate 6.23

of Bouillon, 23 influence on Crusader architecture, 9,313

Islamic, 334, 499n69 Crusaders’ use of, 5, 8 military, 9, 518n18

Crusader contributions to, 14 See also Castles; Fortifications, Crusader. Architecture, Crusader, 69-73 arches of, 136

bent-angle columns in, 247, 383, 583n269, 585n302, plate 9.36g

Boase’s study of, 14

capitals in, 60, 501n98, 554n54

in earthquake of 1170, 391, 398,

Daniel's account of, 64

588n36 fortifications of, 15, 108, 302

Enlart’s analysis of, 11

founding of, 28 Fulk as overlord of, 121

John II's siege of, 124-25 monuments of, 2 mosaics of ecumenical council, 360,

362, plate 9.18, plate 9.20a Orthodox Christians in, 598n247 Tancred’s defense of, 53

transformation of mosques, 29 True Cross relics at, 507n8 Turkish threat to, 82-83 Venetians at, 84

Apamea

capture by Crusaders, 53 Nureddin’s siege of, 543n107 Apostles in Church of the Annunciation sculpture, 434-35

in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226 holy sites of, 478 relics of, 298

Apulia Christian refugees to, 473 paintings of, 462 sculpture of, 397, 455, 456, 479 ties to Latin Kingdom, 167, 477 Aqsa Mosque. See Templum Salomonis. Arbor Vitae motifs, 227 Arches of Abu Ghosh, 383

of Church of St. John (Ramla), 306

of Church of St. Mary (Mt. Sion), 470

of Crac des Chevaliers, 584n292

in Crusader architecture, 136,

537n4647 of Holy Sepulcher, 213, 228, 538n60

ogival, 5, 225, 537n4647 of Sens, 537n46 of St. Anne (Jerusalem), 213 of St. Denis, 537n46 of St. Jean d’Acre, 537n47 of Templum Salomonis, 213 Architecture

of Armenian Christians, 499n69 Byzantine, 6, 214 French

French influence on, 9, 272-73 of Hospitalers, 9 Levantine elements of, 476

masonry of, 519n33 polyglot nature of, 8 razing by Moslems, 16 of reign of Amaury, 393-404, 409 of reign of Baldwin II, 105-12 of reign of Baldwin III, 302 Architecture, ecclesiastical of Abu Ghosh, 313

Melisende’s patronage of, 133, 290 of reign of Baldwin II, 109-11

of reign of Fulk and Melisende, 130-37 Architecture, Near Eastern Crusader components of, 7, 482n10

polyglot nature of, 14 Architecture, Romanesque, 479 of Bouillon, 23 of Crusader castles, 483n40 Crusaders’ use of, 5, 7, 8, 9, 33, 72, 542n95

Eastern origins of, 10 fantastic in, 319 of French churches, 436-37, 541n94 sculpture in, 546n172, 583n277

Argenton-Chateau (France), 555n82 591n90 Armenian Christians, 3, 173 architecture of, 499n69

artists among, 404, 475, 477 as art patrons, 4 of Edessa, 121

expulsion from Alexandretta, 300 at Holy Sepulcher, 406 in Jerusalem, 405

John Il’s campaign against, 125 Melisende’s patronage of, 247 See also Christians, indigenous. Armor, decoration of, 489n54 Arnold, Castle construction of, 122 location of, 123

‘Arqah, Raymond’s siege of, 29 Arsuf, siege of, 48

Art, Byzantine

;

architecture of, 471 at Barletta, 529n151

ists in, 346, 570n48

East-West interpenetration in, 13, 463, 476, 479 role of Crusader art in, 11

e in Europe, 577n146

typology of, 238

calendars of, 151, 528n128 choosing of, 500n86 at Church of St. Mary (Sion), 65,

in, 570n48, 570n49 nian style of, 366, 463

> in Jerusalem, 72, 105 -e on Crusader art, 14, 15, 16,

7, 45, 87,463, 476 ce on fortifications, 9 e on manuscript illumina1, 13, 155, 337, 338, 346-47 1ce on mosaics, 13, 14, 238 .ce on western art, 485n52 ted columns in, 364, 576n133, 601n286 pre

incial, 580n222

S

Iconography, Byzantine.

Art,

after Battle of Hattin, 473

aristocratic aspects of, 478 under Baldwin I, 45 Byzantine influence on, 14, 15, 16,

"17, 45, 87, 463, 476 colonialism in, 10, 15, 16, 475, 478,

481n6, 539n76 commissioning of, 3, 16 definition of, 3, 4, 15, 16, 481n6, 603n8

destruction of, 16, 29-30, 474, 476, 488n37 De Vogiié’s concept of, 7

diversity in, 105, 538n63 Eurocentrism of, 3, 13, 33 French influence on, 5, 7, 10 French scholarship on, 12 historiography of, 1-2, 5, 9, 16 icons in, 408, 586n332, 587n339

ct of Holy Sepulcher on, 245 ence on western art, 299 ences on, 5-6

‘scriptions in, 603n10 Islamic influence on, 334 of,

478

iments of, 3, 481n7

patronage of, 3-4, 16, 299, 324, 404, pilgrims among, 97 training of, 462 See also Sculptors; Workshops. Ascalon Baldwin I and, 68 Baldwin III’s conquest of, 87, 176, 285, 287, 288, 558n14 battle of (1099), 35 frescoes of, 561n67 as part of Latin Kingdom, 299 in reign of Fulk, 123

Scandinavians at, 317 threat to Latin Kingdom, 49, 128, 130, 520n45

ls

ar, 603n10 ymachia in, 435

character of, 584n291

eign of Baldwin III, 176 ‘rench: influence on Crusader art, >, 77 LO) Le Art, indigenous Christian, 4, 404, 475,

477, 479, 585n303 Art, medieval,

1

and reform of the clergy, 500n87 and renovation of Holy Sepulcher,

203 role in Latin Kingdom, 54, 504n142 seals of, 170 and Templars, 78 at Templum Domini, 173, 251, 266,

285, 551n21

workshop of, 441, 480 Aulnay (France), 555n82, 591n90

Austins. See Augustinian Canons. Autun, tomb of Lazarus at, 213, 521n68, 594n155

Ayyubid dynasty, 390, 587n14 Baalbek, ruins of, 36, 491n25

Bab al-Sakina (gate), 225, plate 8A.7b-c capitals of, 266, 272, 563n108-9, plate porch of, 266, 554n56

in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 358, 363, plate 9.12a, plate 9.13a in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 235, 236, 238, 242, 546n152, 546n156, 546n158, plate 7.10b mosaics of, 231

in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate

Bab al-Silsila (gate), plate 8A.7a—b

capitals of, 266, 272, plate 8A.7d mosaics of, 225 porch of, 266, 554n56

Bahdeidat, fresco painting of, 403 Baisan (Beit She’an), 36, 460 Baldacchinos of Church of the Annunciation, 433,

434, 592n115-16, 592n118

6.8u

in Theoctistus Monastery frescoes,

to, 13

at Church of the Nativity, 66

control of holy sites, 226, 471 in Jerusalem, 65, 500n89, 504n142 monastic establishments of, 322 ownership of Bethany, 131

8A.7e-f

Venetians at, 84 Ascension

478, 603n10 ivity in, 372

ages

500n89, 528n128

at Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 57, 136

Saladin’s siege of, 412

site of, 65, 504n147

polyglot nature of, 15, 228, 238, 242,

reg

Italian, 105, 508n19, 512n79 Artists, Crusader, 15 East-West travels of, 594n162 Enlart’s study of, 11 identity of, 1, 3, 474-75 materials of, 477 nationality of, 475, 476, 477

lticulturalism of, 15-16, 357, 404,

alization of, 86 of, 34, 16, 299, 324, 404, 474, 180, 481n6, 542n98 srimage art, 478 nage sites in, 155, 232, 363, t

English, 482n18

474, 481n6, 542n98

Crusader

uty

Venetian-sponsored, 84 Artists colonial, 475

and Barletta reliquary, 169

463 in Twelve Feasts icon, 408 Ascension, Church of (Jerusalem), 259-66, 592n118, plate 8A.6a—x capitals of, 250, 266, 272, 273, 319, 554n62, 565n133 date of, 273, 553n52 French influence on, 272, 273 plan of, 260 Ascension Master of San Marco, 238

Ascetics, in column paintings, 366, 369 Assumption, in Jerusalem missal, 162 Ateliers. See Workshops. ‘Athlit (Chateau Pélerin) Deschamps’s study of, 12 excavation of, 15, 483n31

gates of, 382 sculpture of, 9

in Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 62,

434, 502n108

of Tomb of the Virgin, 434 Banners, papal, 487n29 Banyas (Philippi), 515n113, 519n39 capture by Crusaders, 87 Fulk’s siege of, 126, 519n38 Nureddin’s attacks on, 300, 333

recapture by Turks, 121 Saladin’s siege of, 413

strategic importance of, 126 town fortifications of, 108-9, 515n113, 515n116, 561n69, plate 5.22a—b Barletta

cathedral, inscriptions on, 288, 558n18

reliquaries of, 512n82 Barletta True Cross reliquary, 529n152,

plate 6.16

Augustinian canons

641

date of, 169

Barletta True Cross reliquary (continued) decoration of, 168, 529n154

dimensions of, 167 mounting of, 168, 529n155 Battle standards, 28, 33, 487n29 of Count Raymond, 29 Bayeux tapestry, 23 Beaufort (castle), 12

Beirut churches of, 11, 70, 306 conquest of, 68 frescoes of, 403, 584n300, 585n301 paintings of, 383 silk industry at, 525n110 Beit She’an (Scythopolis), 36, 460 Belfort, castle of, 126, 520n42 plan of, plate 6.2a—b Belmont, castle of, 393, 582n263 excavation of, 579n186

Belmont, Monastery of, 11, 322-24 plan, 566n142, plate 8B.25 Belvoir (castle), 123, 520n41, 583n266,

plate 9.36b building materials of, 397, 477, 583n270, 583n274 capitals, 397, plate 9.36d-e and Nazareth capitals, 438-39 capture by Fulk, 126 chapel of, 397, 583n280, 583n282 excavation of, 15, 483n31, 583n265 Hospitalers at, 281 plan, plate 9.36a Romanesque elements of, 397, 583n277 Saladin at, 460

sculptors of, 397 sculpture, 393-98, 583n268, 583n271, 584n291, plate 9.36c—h date of, 594n146 Theodorich on, 393 tympana, 397, 583n280 Benedictines at Bethany, 131, 521n57, 521n65 convents of, 278, 322 at Gethsemane, 566n150 in Holy Land, 504n157, 522n70 on Mt. Tabor, 66 patronage of, 278 of St. Mary Latin, 379-80 Berlin flasks, 294-97, 336, 477, plate

8B.8a—b dating of, 296-97

Holy Sepulcher on, 568n23 inscriptions of, 560n52 three Marys on, 560n42 Bethany, plate 6.1 fortified churches of, 579n190 in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226-27 Bethany, Convent of, 131-33, 521n64,

521n67

figural sculpture of, 82, 131, 508n22 Melisende’s patronage of, 131, 136,

166, 285, 559n24

plan of, plate 6.4a sculpture of, plate 6.4b-c

Theodorich at, 456 tomb of Lazarus, 54, 521n67-68 decorations of, 131, 521n69 Yvetta at, 131, 133, 521n57

Beth Gibelin (Beit Govrin, castle), 123,

505n166, 515n113, 518n20-22 completion of, 126 as gift to Hospitalers, 518n17 Hospitalers at, 130, 302 Bethlehem coronations at, 79, 119

Crusader cloister capitals, plate 8A.9a—c Daniel’s visit to, 66 destruction by Saracens, 491n13 De Vogiié’s descriptions of, 8

architecture of, 499n69

caliphate of, 333 Caladrius (bird), 467, 468, 600n273, 600n275-76

Calendars, liturgical, 528n128, 543n 105 of Angelica-Fitzwilliam sacramentary, 103-4, 105, 162, 514n100-101 of Augustinian canons, 151, 162 of Jerusalem, 151, 524n92 of Jerusalem missal, 162 of Psalter of Queen Melisende, 137, 151, 154, 158, plate 6.9a—c

zodiac of, 156 St. Martin of Tours in, 151, 155, 524n93

First Crusaders at, 30

Calvary, depiction in Hospitaler Church

holy sites of, 2 iconography of, 96, 97, 511n78

of Abu Ghosh, 389 Cambrai map, 281, 294, 543n106,

paintings in, 68, 511n66

pilgrims’ narratives of, 409 workshop of, 318, 357, 363, 371

See also Nativity, Church of (Bethle-

548n187, 552n35 aedicule on, 336, 568n23 Church of St. Abraham on, 579n182 date of, 556n100

Holy Sepulcher on, 560n41

hem).

Bethphage, 65, 226, 227 in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 540n83,

540n86 stele of, 456, plate 10.18a—b Bezants (coins), 42

Crusaders’ use of, 90 of Latin Kingdom, 73, 460, plate 4.18

Tomb of Virgin on, 566n150

Campania, sculpture of, 455, 456 Campaniles of Church of the Nativity, 528n146 of Crusader churches, 548n187

of Holy Sepulcher, 186, 214, 243-45, 538n57, 548n187-88, plate 7.11a-c

Saracen, 169, 171, 174

of Tripoli, 89 See also Coinage, Crusader. Billon deniers (coins), 42, 478, 530n173, plate 3.34 of Antioch, 559n22, plate 6.23 “Crucis,” 170, 530n174 of Edessa, 88 of Jerusalem, 568n19, plate 6.18-22,

plate 8B.2

of Hospital of St. John, 276, 548n186 Italian, 548n194 Theodorich on, 214, 538n57

Canons, Augustinian. See Augustinian canons.

Capitals of Bab al-Sakina, 563n108-9 of Belvoir castle, 397, plate 9.36d—e of bent-angle columns, 60, 383,

of King Fulk, 170 of Lucca, 170, 510n59

of Tripoli, 55-56, 171 al-Bira, 44, 111

Bishops, Byzantine: in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 388 Blanche Garde (castle), 130, 520n50-51 Bookbindings, silk, 157, 526n119-21 Book of Durrow, 569n43 Book of Kells, 569n43 Bouillon, architectural traditions of, 23

Brussels map, 556n100, 566n150 Buchanan Bible (Cambridge), 466 Burgundy, sculpture of, 437, 479, 594n164

501n98, 583n269 Byzantine, 123 of Cathedral of St. James, plate

8A.2b of Cathedral of St. John (Sebaste), 311-313, 319, 563n107-8

564n110, plate 8B.15c—| of of of of

Church of St. John (Gaza), 20° Church of St. John (Sebaste), 4 Church of St. Mary (Sion), 470 Church of the Annunciation, 12, 13, 430, plate 10.9 acanthus, 436, 592n130, plate 10.61

Battle of Demons and Men, 435,

Byzantine Christians, 3 in Crusader settlements, 485n51

Caesarea siege of, 48 See of, 563n105 Cairo Amaury’s siege of, 390

642

plate 10.6f-h dimensions of, 592n130

polygonal, 433-34, 435-36, 593n134, 593n137 rectangular, 435, 436, 592130,

593n134 St. James the Greater, 434,

592n124, plate 10.5h-j

St. Matthew, 434, 438, plate 10.5k—m st. Peter and Tabitha, 434, 436,

593n134, plate 10.6d—e Virgin, 435, 438, plate 10.6a—c { Church of the Ascension, 250, 319,

of

554n62, 565n133 Church of the Nativity, 266, 554n54

of Crusader cloister (Bethlehem), plate 8A.9a—c of Haram, 266 of

{oly Sepulcher, 60, 205, 212, 397,

535n32, 536n36, 537n53, 554n54, plate 4.13d, plate 7.4a-c, plate 7.6b-g, plate 7.6i-k

Byzantine sources of, 225 Solomon, 437, 592n109, 594n148 south transept facade, 225, 536n35 windblown, plate 7.8¢ of Jerusalem, 254, 256-61, 553n44

Latrun, 452, 596n186, 597n213, 600n275, plate 10.16a-g of Omariyya mihrab, 272, 442

of Qubbat al-Miraj, 553n53-54, 554n57, plate 8A.5c-ii of Ramla, 563n97 of St. Peter in Gallicantu, 319,

554n54, 554n62, plate 8A.9d-e of Templar workshop, 452, 455, plate

10.13}-s, plate 10.13w, plate 10.14c-d of Templum Domini, plate 10.15c—-d Carthusians, 501n96 Cartularies, 8

of Holy Sepulcher, 99, 513n89-91 of Hospitalers, 281

Castles, Crusader

aerial photography of, 12 Boase’s study of, 13 chapels of, 112 Deschamps’s study of, 11-12 excavation of, 483n31

photography of, 483n34 razing of, 587n19 in reign of Amaury, 393-404

of reign of Fulk, 121 of Syria, 8-9 tower keeps of, 499n68 See also Fortifications, Crusader.

Castrum Rubrum (Qal’at Yahmour), 517n5 Chalcedon ecumenical council, mosaics

of, plate 9.17a—b

Champmol (Dijon), 546n153

Chapel of the Condemnation (Jerusalem), 318

Chapel of the Flagellation (Jerusalem), 318 capitals of, 435 Templar sculpture in, 452

Chapel of the Repose (Jerusalem), plate 8B.21b

capitals, 318, plate 8B.21--f

French influence on, 318, 319

plan of, plate 8B.21a

Charente Maritime, 272, 273 Chastel Blanc (Safitha), 12, 302, 562n82

Chastel de Rugia

battle of, 121 location of, 517n5

Chastellet (castle), 412 Chateau Pélerin. See ‘Athlit. Chatsworth torso, 430, 432, 439, 590n66,

591n94, plate 10.11b-c

stone of, 592n123

Christians, indigenous, 3 of Antioch, 490n12 art of, 4 in Crusader settlements, 42, 121,

485n51 influence on Crusader art, 15, 16

of northern Crusader States, 404

in workshop of Holy Sepulcher, 203

See also Armenian Christians; Greek

Orthodox Christians; Syrian Orthodox Christians.

Christmas Day, coronations on, 48, 496n10, 507n1 Church and state under Baldwin II, 82 in Near East, 46, 73, 491n27 Churches

Armenian, 247, 249 Cluniac, 541n94 German, 586n318

influence on Holy Sepulcher, 228, 541n94 pilgrimage, 16, 24, 112, 245, 278

polyglot nature of, 14 Romanesque, 535n30, 541n94 of Tyre, 85

Churches, Byzantine, 136, 503n120, 515n119 Daniel’s account of, 64 decoration of, 243 Churches, Crusader, 4, 11, 482n9

apses of, 72

arches of, 537n4647 basilicas of, 307 Boase’s study of, 13, 14

Byzantine influence on, 110 campaniles of, 548n187

conversion to mosques, 498n65 De Vogiié’s analysis of, 7-8, 505n168 ecclesiastical holdings of, 555n86

fortified, 282, 382, 579n190 Levantine elements of, 323 of Nazareth, 66

plans of, 506n187 of reign of Baldwin II, 112 of reign of Baldwin III, 302-28 of reign of Fulk and Melisende, 130-37 Romanesque elements of, 112, 324,

476, 478 Tancred’s decoration of, 36

643

treasuries of, 392 workshops of, 136 See also Architecture, ecclesiastical. Churches, French Romanesque architecture of, 436-37, 541n94 sculpture of, 431, 592n109 Church fathers, paintings of, 299, 561n67 Cilicia Manuel Comnenus’s campaign in, 301 manuscript illumination in, 599n265 Cistercians, 471 at Belmont, 322-23, 566n142

La Citez de Jerusalem, 243

Cleansing of the Temple, 540n82, 540n84 Cleveland Tapestry, 512n78 Cluniac Order in Latin Kingdom, 322 at Monastery of Mt. Tabor, 109 pilgrimage road churches of, 541n 94 Cluny, 501n95 cloister of, 60 Coats of arms, 33, 489n54 Coinage, 1 “horse and cross,” plate 6.22 Saracen, 73, 89, 169, 530n165 Coinage, Byzantine, 42 crosses on, 51 iconography of, 88, 290, 510n52 influence on Crusader coinage, 52, 530n174 saints on, 51, 497n36 Coinage, Crusader, 4, 4043, 477 of Antioch, 41, 51-52, 88-89, 531n183, 599n264, plate 3.8, plate 4.6, plate 5.6-8 bezants, 171

billon deniers, 559n22, plate 6.23 of Raymond I, 171-72, 559n22, plate 6.23 of Raymond II, 599n22 architectural images on, 290 assimilation of Saracen coins, 530n165 bezants, 73, 169, plate 4.18 Byzantine sources of, 41-42, 52, 88, 530n174 of Edessa, 41-42, 50-51, 52, 88, 172, 494n57, 526n122 folles, plate 4.2-5 gold, 170, 477, 510n58 Greek inscriptions on, 50, 88 Holy Sepulcher on, 170, 530n170 imagery of, 52 Latin inscriptions on, 89 of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,

41-42, 73, 88, 89, 297, 530n169-70, 558n19, 559n21-22, plate 5.4-5 deniers, 334, 527n122, 559n22,

Coinage, Crusader (continued)

568n19, 568n22, plate 6.18-22, plate 8B.2, plate 9.1 of reign of Amaury I, 334-37 of reign of Baldwin II, 289-90 of reign of Fulk and Melisende, 169-72 royal prerogatives of, 478 Tower of David on, 89, 289-90, 297, 559n20 “Moneta Regis,” 170, 530n173 Moslem inscriptions on, 169, 529n164 multiculturalism of, 480 portraits on, 51-52, 172, 497n41,

497n45 purpose of, 42 Coinage, European influence on Crusader coinage, 478 use by Crusaders, 494n56, 497n26 Colobium (garment), 295, 560n45

Colonialism of Crusader art, 10, 15, 16, 475, 478, 539n76 of Crusader society, 475, 484n51

North American, 475, 603n2-4 Column paintings. See Nativity, Church of (Bethlehem): column paint-

ings. Constantinople, 2, plate 2.1 Amaury’s visit to, 334, 391, 568n13, 581n231-32 arts of, 477, 486n12, 580n222 ecumenical council mosaics, 352,

353, 359, 362, 573n80, plate 9.15-16 First Crusade at, 24-26 Fourth Crusade at, 391, 581n233 icons of, 582n248 illuminated manuscripts of, 347 massacre of 1182, 459, 466 relics of, 28 reliquaries of, 582n249 silk industry at, 525n110

Convent of the Flagellation, Museum of, 516n144, 594n153 Convents, fortified, 131 Copts, 586n319 Coronations, 517n2 at Bethlehem, 79, 119

on Christmas Day, 48, 496n10, 507n1 on feast days, 558n5 in Holy Sepulcher, 119, 165, 203 Cosmatesque floors, 548n182 Costume cross insignia on, 21, 485n2-3 of kings of Jerusalem, 46, 333, 392, 567n10 Council of Nablus, 82, 113 Cour de la Fonde (Latin Jerusalem),

331 Crac des Chevaliers (Hisn al-Akrad),

plate 9.37b-c Boase’s study of, 13, 15 capture by Raymond, 29

chapels, 584n292, plate 9.37d-f, plate 9.371 rebuilding of, 402 Deschamps’s study of, 12 in earthquake of 1170, 391, 398, 583n284 excavation of, 15

frescoes, 393, 402-4, 580n214, 584n293-95, 585n303, plate 9.37g¢-h Byzantine influence in, 403 St. George, 389 Virgin and Child Hodegetria, 403, 584n300, plate 9.37j-k Hospitalers at, 281, 302, 398 importance of, 13

masons of, 404 plans of, 483n33, plate 9.37a

rebuilding of, 398 sculpture of, 9, 584n291 Crosses on coinage, 51, 89, 170, 171, 478 commemorative, 62, 502n114 double-barred, 167, 295, 298, 361,

512n84-86, 580n198 on Edessa coinage, 88, 526n122 Latin, 98 orthodox, 98 patriarchal, 51, 497n31 on Psalter of Queen Melisende,

156-57, 526n115 single-armed, 51, 168, 361 stone, 62

of Valence coinage, 497n26 See also True Cross. Cross insignia of Crusader costume, 21, 485n2-3

prior to First Crusade, 487n29 Cross of Glory mosaic (Church of the Nativity), 359, 361, 576n131, plate 9.20a Cross reliquaries. See True Cross relics Crowns, royal, 495n6, 496n8

Crucifixion on ampullae, 295, 560n45, plate 8B.9a fresco paintings, 239, plate 7.10c in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 238 Calvary Chapel, 546n148 in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 388, 389, plate 9.34d, plate 9.35; iconography of, 546n150 in Psalter of Queen Melisende,

546n148, plate 6.80-p sculpture of, 62 Crusade, First

heraldry of, 489n54 at Jerusalem, 30, 32-33

leaders of, 23-24 miracles in, 33, 489n54 routes of, 22, 485n5 Urban’s call for, 21 Crusade, Fourth: at Constantinople, 391, 581n233 Crusade, Second, 67, 529n147 chroniclers of, 178

and Crusader building program, 275 prisoners in, 300 role in Holy Sepulcher’s renovation, 186, 227, 537n46 True Cross relics in, 285 Crusade, Third, 441, 473 Crusade of 1101, 48-49 Crusaders, First alliances with Moslems, 51 architectural innovations of, 5 at battle of Ascalon, 35 cemeteries of, 34, 229

at Constantinople, 24-26 costume of, 21, 485n2-3 definition of, 3 gifts to, 29, 489n36 march from Antioch, 28 march to Jerusalem, 25

minting activities of, 506n192 nationality of, 23-24, 25 prosopography of, 513n92

rebuilding of holy sites, 64-65 telics of, 28, 29, 43, 487n27, 492n32

return to Europe, 35, 37, 490n12 Scandinavians among, 68 selection of castle sites, 14 use of local costume, 52, 497n39 vow of, 3, 481n4 Crusader socie colonialism of, 475, 484n51

stability of, 87 Crusader States, 2 after Battle of Hattin, 472 Boase’s study of, 12

coinage of, 56 consolidation of power in, 9! diocesan churches in, 278, 555n3¢

European settlers in, 86, 119,

496

474, 477 Fatimid invasion of, 84, 509n35

history of, 1, 532n4 indigenous Christians in, 121 internal strife in, 121 maps of, 47, 77, 120, 176, 332

metalwork of, 52-54 Northern, 49-54, 299-302

patronage of arts in, 404

at Antioch, 26-27 armies of, 23

orientalization of, 3, 86-87, 105, 119,

battle standards of, 28, 487n29,

Orthodox Christians in, 3, 73, 247,

488n34 coinage of, 40-43 eyewitness accounts of, 486n8, 486n11

169 286, 322, 549n7, 550n14,

585n313

polyglot nature of, 331, 405, 476, 480, 485n51

50

of,

2a

of Toulouse’s influence in,

49

on Chapel of St. Helen, 500n83, 501n103

Dies Aegyptiaci, 151, 524n92 Amaury, 409 Baldwin IV, 587n4

S

‘usalem, Latin Kingdom ibigensian, 362

Crus

ir, castle of), 121, 518n9

Curs Cypru

;

for Fre

ations of, 8 fluence in, 10

fresco paintings of, 389 manuscript illumination of, 599n262 refugees to, 595n168 Renaud’s invasion of, 300, 561n71 Damascus, 409

figural sculpture of, 564n110 Great Mosque of, 228, 361 al-Hanabilah mosque, 564n110 in pilgrim narratives, 112

Saladin’s occupation of, 410 Zengi’s campaign at, 126 Damascus Gate chapel (Jerusalem), 313, 315

frescoes, 379-82, 564n117, plate 9.30a-—d Annunciation, 379

date of, 378, 380-81 function of, 381-82 stone altar of, 381 Daphni, mosaics of, 238, 578n160 Deésis Byzantine iconography of, 239

fresco in Church of the Nativity, 165, plate 6.15a—b

in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234 Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, plate 9.34c, plate 9.35h

Demon

Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.8x sculpture athedral of St. Maurice, 439 azareth capitals, 435, 438, plate 10.6b-c, f-h

Deniers. De

De

See Billon deniers. idorf, 512n81

idorf True Cross reliquary, 97-100, 166, 512n82, 529n153, plate 5.17a—-b zantine models of, 100 re of, plate 5.16 of, 169

ration of, 97-98 rensions of, 97, 167-68, 512n83

nction of, 98-99 ounting of, 99, 512n84 ice of origin, 99 !so True Cross relics.

Dikka. See Templum Salomonis Dome of the Chain (Qubbat al-Silsila,

Jerusalem), 253, 273, 552n36, plate 8A.4 Dome of the Rock. See Templum Domini Dome of Victory (Qubbat al-Nasr), 472 Domschatz silver casket, 53

Etchmiadzin Chapel (Jerusalem), 249 Ethiopians, 586n319 Etimasia, Deésis Chapel paintings of, 165, plate 6.15d Eucharist, in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 238 Evangelists in Byzantine art, 346, 570n48 in Paris gospelbook, 346, plate 9.3c, plate 9.3f in Vatican gospelbook, 341, 345, 346,

Dormition. See Koimesis of the Virgin.

Doves, iconography of, 346, 570n44, 570n48

366, plate 9.4a, plate 9.4c—f in Western art, 346, 570n44, 570n51

Expulsion of the Money Changers, 540n82, 552n34

Easby Abbey, 471 Ebstorf map, 543n112

Famagusta, architecture of, 10

Ecclesia, iconography of, 388, 580n210

Fatimids

Ecumenical councils

Amaury’s campaign against, 390-91

iconography of, 574n113

at battle of Ascalon, 35

mosaics, 359, 360-61, 363

coinage of, 42, 73, 89, 529n164 engagement at Ramla, 49

of Antioch, 360, 362, plate 9.18,

plate 9.20a borders of, 364

of Chalcedon, plate 9.17a—b

invasion of Crusader States, 76, 78 at Jerusalem, 30 mints of, 510n58

of Constantinople, 352, 353, 359, 573n80, plate 9.15-16

and Nureddin, 300

dates of, 574n114-15, 575n120

recognition of Latin Kingdom, 69

Orthodox theology of, 362,

in reign of Fulk, 123 repulse by Eustace of Garnier, 84 sculpture of, 226, plate 7.9r

575n124

of Sardika, 360, 362, plate

plaques of, 516n144

See also Moslems; Turks.

9.19-20a

texts of, 361-62 Edessa indigenous Christians of, 490n12 monuments of, 2

Fenioux (France), 555n82 Ferronnerie, 136-37, 523n85

as artistic center, 476, 525n106

Festivals Byzantine, 155, 162, 363, 546n154 of Holy Cross, 78, 119, 507n6, 530n174

Baldwin’s conquest of, 26-27

Fitzwilliam sacramentary. See Angelica-

Edessa, County of, 509n40 coinage of, 41-42, 50-51, 52, 88, 172, 494n57, 526n122 Crusader art in, 16 dissolution of, 176 fall of, 404 fortifications of, 15

Fitzwilliam sacramentary.

Flasks. See Ampullae, pilgrims’; Berlin flasks. Folles (coins), 41, 42, plate 3.5 Crusaders’ use of, 90

of Edessa, plate 4.2-5

Egyptians. See Fatimids.

Fontevrault, sculpture of, 272-73, 479 Forbelet, castle of, 460

Ekphraseis (rhetoric), 372, 578n157,

Fortifications, Byzantine, 499n69

Seljuk threat to, 299 591n100 Embroidery, silk, 156-57, 158, 159,

525n108, 526n111-12

Armenian, 525n110 Emmaus, 382, 389, 579n185

meeting at, 580n198 Enamels, Crusader, 16

influence on Crusader castles, 54, 499n69

Fortifications, Crusader, 14-15 of Baldwin I, 69-73 at Belvoir, 393

Byzantine influence on, 9 castrum-type, 123, 130

England, sculpture of, 471 Entombment, mosaics of, 232, 235, 528n151 Entry into Jerusalem, mosaics of, 358,

"363, 364

in Crusader art, 13

of Hospitalers, 15 of northern Syria, 54

of reign of Baldwin II, 105-9

Deposition, in Holy Sepulcher mosaics,

Epiphany, on Monza ampullae, 574n111

235-36 De situ urbis Jerusalem, 62, 202 1uthorship of, 187

Ernoul, Chronicle of, 461 Estoire d’Eracles, 413

Etampes, sculpture of, 438, 591n109

645

in reign of Baldwin IV, 412 of reign of Fulk, 126-30 See also Architecture, Crusader; Castles, Crusader.

Fountains Abbey, 281 Franciscans excavation of Bethany, 131 excavation of Holy Sepulcher, 242 in Nazareth, 588n42 Franks, 3

coinage of, 169 at Edessa, 27

fortifications of, 54

|

:|

|) .

|

identity of, 23-24, 486n9 John of Wiirzburg on, 586n317 minting by, 73 at Nazareth, 66 occupation of Jerusalem, 490n12 orientalization of, 86-87, 105, 119, 169, 406, 462, 474, 477 patronage of, 389 use of icons, 408 Fresco paintings, 165-66, 313-18 of Bahdeidat, 403 of Beirut, 584n300, 585n301 Byzantine, 299, 313 of Church of St. Anne, 579n191 of Crac des Chevaliers, 393, 40244, plate 9.37g-m of Crucifixion, 239, plate 7.10c of Cyprus, 389 of Damascus Gate chapel, 379-82 of Deésis Chapel (Church of the Nativity), 165, plate 6.15a—b at Gethsemane, 313, 315, 379, 564n117 of Holy Sepulcher, plate 7.10c of Invention of the Head of St. John the Baptist (Sebaste), 564n115

Nerezi cycle of, 236, 389 Orthodox, 403 of Qara, 584n300

of reign of Baldwin IV, 461-63

See also Nativity, Church of (Bethlehem), column Paintings; Paintings. Galilee Abbot Daniel at, 66 as part of Latin Kingdom, 491n16 Tancred’s capture of, 48

Gastun (Baghras, castle), 125, 300,

519n33

Templars at, 561n71

Gaza

fortifications of, 287, 302 Templars at, 287, 302, 563n100

See also St. John, Church of.

Genoese, 477 at Antioch, 28, 488n32 at Caesarea, 48 inscription in Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 62-64, 230, 502n116, 508n19 location of, 63 in Latin Kingdom, 68 political power of, 56, 84 at siege of Jerusalem, 32

at Tripoli, 55

Gero Crucifix (Cologne), 62, 502n111 Gesta Francorum et Aliorum Hierosolimitorum

author of, 24, 486n11 on battle of Ascalon, 35 on Holy Lance, 487n28

on Kerbogha, 28 on Ramla, 30 Gethsemane, 65

fresco paintings at, 313, 315, 379, 564n117 Tomb of the Virgin, 65, 113, 491n20, 516n135, 566n150, 566n153—-54,

plate 8B.27a—-d Templar Sculpture in, 452 Gibelet (Jubail, castle), 12, 15, 498n67,

plate 4.10a—b in earthquake of 1170, 391 fortification of, 54

See also St. John, Church of (Gibelet).

Glass, Crusader, 16, 602n1

Glykophilousa. See Nativity, Church of (Bethlehem): column paint-

ings. Goldsmiths, 480

as burgesses, 559n26 Byzantine, 98, 100, 512n85 charters of, 290, 559n26 of Jerusalem, 83, 97, 99-100, 167,

512n82, 513n88-89, 513n91-92 in reign of Amaury, 391

in reign of Baldwin III, 290, 297,

298 Gospelbook of St. John, 282-83, 546n155, plate 8A.13a—b decoration of, 557n105-6 See also Paris gospelbook; Vatican gospelbook. Gothic architecture, 5 birth of, 324, 479 of Church of St. Mary (Sion), 470,

477, 601n305 sculpture of, 397 Greek Orthodox Christians, 27, 121, 462 artists among, 404, 477 at Holy Sepulcher, 406, 586n319 See also Christians, indigenous. Gresham Jerusalem Project, 535n26 Guelph Treasure, 392, 582246 Hagia Sophia (Ochrid), 238 Hague map, 293, 556n100, 566n 150 Haifa capture by Crusaders, 48 siege of, 42

Halberstadt Aeres (communio n veils),

157

Haram al-Sharif (Jerusalem), 32, plate

8A.3a-c, plate 8A.8a—c capitals, 266 abaci, plate 8B.23 entrance to, plate 8A.7a-g gates of, 225

mosaics of, 240 Ommayad period of, 213

place of Templum Domini in, 251

Qubba Nahwiyya, 266, plate 8A.7g location of, 554n58 restrictions on access to, 6 spolia of, 212, 441

statuary of, 44 summer pulpit of Cadi Burhan, 565n134, 596n187, plate 8B.22 Templars’ control of, 173 workshops of, 273, 437, 441 See also Templum Salomonis. Harenc, 300 capture by Nureddin, 333

Harim, castle of, 412, 460 Harran, battle of, 49

Harrowing of Hell, in Psalter of Queen

Melisende, plate 6.8r Hauran, military campaigns in, 176 Hebron, 8, 362 capture by Crusaders, 48 Daniel’s visit to, 66 holy sites of, 35, 82 Heraldry, 564n119 origins of, 489n54 Hisn al-Akrad. See Crac des Chevaliers Hofkapelle, 487n23

Holy Cross, festival of Exaltation of, 78 7

119, 391, 507n6, 530n174 Holy Fire, ceremony of, 64, 391, 503n126, 571n58 Holy Lance of Christ in battle of Ascalon, 35, 487n28

discrediting of, 29

finding of, 27-29, 487n25, 487n27

reliquary of, 28, 33 Holy Land. See Near East.

Holy Sepulcher, Church of (Barletta),

167, 529n151 Holy Sepulcher, Church of (Jerusalem), 60-62, 63, 243,

479,

501n105, 507n17, plate 7.1, plate 7.2a Adam Chapel, 37, 506n193, plate 3.1b, plate 7.3m, plate 7.3w,

plate 7.3z Byzantine portions of, 233 sculpture of, plate 7.5

aedicule, 79-82, 517n3, 535125. plate

5.1c-e

Amico plan of, 336, 507n17, plate 5.1b, plate 9.2

baldacchino of, 434 Breydenbach woodcut of, 507n17, plate 5.1a date of, 508n18 depiction on coins, 336 depiction on seals, 90, 508n24 golden cross on, 392 mosaics of, 230, 231-32, 233,

544n127

renovations to, 186, 203, 337,

547n180

re of, 79, 82, 508n20-21,

, 205, 212, plate 7.3k—m, 3p is of, plate 7.4a s’ marks of, 536n32 s mosaic, 230-31, 232-33,

At

2, 296, 543n110-11, 544n121,

abaci of, plate 7.8c, plate 7.8e acanthus, 205, 212, plate 7.6e-¢ Byzantine sources of, 225 Daniel, 212, plate 7.6i-k Solomon, 212, 437, 440, 592n109,

594n148, plate 7.6b—d cartularies of, 99, 513n89-91

ms’ accounts of, 406,

Chapel of Golgotha, 536n33

2, plate 7.2b-e, plate 7.3f, late 7.3] ns of, 537n45

struction of, 536n44 mosaics of, 231 228, 538n60

nanesque elements of, 213 arci

plate 7.4b-c

198 ption of, 544n121

g Stone, plate 7.3w-x

arches,

capitals, 535n32, 537n53, 554n54,

ects of, 538n59

Arnulf Ciborium, 62, 502n108 ATT ‘s renovations of, 57, 517n3, 533n18, 535n27

windblown, plate 7.8¢

dedication ceremony in, 233 excavation of, 535n26 inscriptions of, 228, 542n100, 542n102-3 mosaics of, 233, 235 Chapel of St. Helen, 202, 239, 499n83, 517n3, 567n159, plate

4.14, plate 7.3aa, plate 7.3m access to, 212, 536n33 in Crusader reconstruction, 204 dome, plate 7.2f restoration of, 501n94, 501n103 vaulting of, 57, 60, 501n103

artistic impact of, 227

Chapel of St. John, 502n113

artists of, 228, 245, 273 Baldwin II's renovations to, 79 Baldwin III’s coronation in, 175 stery, 538n57

Chapel of St. Mary, 62, 502n113 Chapel of the Crowning of Thorns,

oibliography of, 532n5 Boase’s study of, 12, 14 ouilding materials of, 2 03, 534n 5

Byzantine portions of, 48, 62, 79, 177, 204, 213, 214, 233-34, 245, 501n95, 534n23 basilica, 57, 204, 496n12, 499n83 apels, 214, 536n33 1 Crusader rebuilding, 204, 212 lan, 178

Calvary Chapel, 204, 214 cess to, 541n92

yzantine rebuilding of, 233, 236 igural lintels of, 227 anciscan, plate 7.3u reek, plate 7.3t, plate 7.3v-w fluence on Western art, 546n153 saics of, 230, 233-43, 545n144, 546n148, 546n152

Cambrai map, 560n41, 568n23 panile, 186, 214, 243-45, 538n57, 548n187-88, plate 7.1la—c isons’ marks of, 536n32 1s’ cloister, 57-60, 203, 501n105, plate 4.13b-e nment with main church, 204, 501n96-97 \rnulf’s role in, 503n123

ipitals of, 60, plate 4.13d chronology of, 64 date of, 500n94, 501n94—95, 507n16 location of, 60 plans of, 181, plate 4.13a

536n33

pilgrim narratives of, 285 East-West intermingling in, 214, 228,

242, 245 enclosure of holy sites within, 2034,

205, 228, 229, 243, 535n99

Enlart’s study of, 11 European possessions of, 113 excavations of, 242, 534n26 fire (1808), 225, 492n36, 536n44 floors, tessellated, 242, 548n181-82

Frankish elements of, 62, 273

Franks’ Chapel, 214, 567n159, plate 7.8j-m mosaics of, 230, 234, 576n133

patronage of, 538n66 plan of, 235, 547n179

sculpture of, 225, 272, 563n108, 596n178 voussoirs of, 240-42, plate 7.10d fresco paintings in, plate 7.10c

furnishings of, 243 galleries, 212, 536n4142 sculpture of, plate 7.6a Genoese inscription in, 62-64, 230, 502n116

grotto of the

Holy Cross, 57, 239,

500n83, plate 7.3bb

ground level of, 204, 214

Chapel of the Division of Garments, Chapel of the Flagellation, 536n33

holy sites near, 64 and iconography of ampullae, 294-97

chevet, 236, 242, 568n25

icons of, 40, 62

choir, 202, 204, 212, plate 7.3f-g vaulting of, 213

images of Christ in, 62, 239, 540n78,

conservation work on, 535n26 coronations in, 119, 165, 203, 33 Crusaders’ capture of, 32

imitations of, 548n195 impact on Crusader art, 245

536n33

Crusaders’ rebuilding of, 178-79, 482n3

chronology of, 63-64, 203, 273, 517n3, 543n108

completion of, 243 concept of, 202-3, 204, 213, 228, 533n18, 537n49 early phases of, 501n94—95

funding of, 203, 534n25 phases of, 229 Daniel’s account of, 60-62, 64-66 dedication (1149), 178, 179, 186-87, 214, 228-29, 488n41, 542n99 date of, 186

in liturgical calendars, 543n105 significance of, 227 depiction on ampullae, 294 depiction on coins, 170, 530n170 depiction on seals, 172, 294, 495n6, 512n85, 559n23 De Vogiié’s analysis of, 7,8 dome, 213-14, 228, 537n52, plate 7.7a

corbels of, 213 symbolism of, 214, 538n55

domed crossing, 212, 213-14, 245, plate 7.3d-e, plate 7.7b-f dimensions of, 537n50

647

540n80-84

influence of pilgrimage road churches on, 228, 245, 535n30, 541n94

lamps of, 64, 392, 581n242, 581n244 legal status of, 337 Levantine elements of, 228, 542n95

lightning strike to, 178, 179, 186, 203, 213, 532n5, 537n49

lintels, 539n74~75, 540n78, 540n80-84

date of, 539n76, 540n76 figural, 226-27, 455, 597n202, plate 7.94

topography of, 540n85, 540n87 vine-scroll, 226, 227, 455, 516n144,

plate 7.9a-b, plate 7.9k—r masonry of, 202, 204

masons’ marks of, 501n94, 535n32, 570n56 masons of, 60, 136, 203, 278

measured drawings of, 482n12 metalwork of, 62 mosaics, 155, 229-33, 245, 494n51, 539n68, 543n109, 544n126,

545n142, 560n48 Ascension in, 234, 235, 236, 238, 242, 546n156, 546n158, plate 7.10b

Holy Sepulcher, Church of (continued) Byzantine, 230, 233, 234, 235-36, 544n126, 546n152 colorism of, 242 decorative motifs of, 240-41

iconography of, 231

images of Christ in, 225, 230-31, 232-33, 235, 236, 238, 543n110-13, plate 7.10b

inscriptions on, 232-33, 236,

242-43 Moslem models for, 225 motifs of, 236

north transept, 212, 536n40, plate 7.3n-s

capitals of, 397, 536n36, plate

7.6b-d

oculus, 290, 336, 559n23 omphalos, 213-14, 538n54

Orthodox clergy at, 333, 406, 567n6,

581n239, 586n319

patriarchal throne in, 495n6

patronage of, 202-3, 542n98 by Melisende, 136, 517n3 pilgrims’ narratives of, 60-62, 63, 243, 501n105, 507n17, 535n28 plans of, 180, 534n22 portals of, 225, 240, 547n177, 581n244, plate 7.10e

Prison of Christ, 204, 536n33, plate

7.3n, plate 7.6h-k sculpture of, 212, 272 prototypes of, 228, 541n94

in reign of Baldwin I, 56, 60

Romanesque aspects of, 63, 204, 213, 228, 541n89, 541n94 rotunda, 63, 202, 501n95, 502n118, 536n33, plate 7.3a-c, plate 7.3i, plate 7.3r Byzantine elements of, 231, 245 on coins, 333, 334-37, plate 9.1 effect of rebuilding on, 204

scriptorium, 16, 100-101, 104-5, 156 Byzantine influence in, 333 English manuscripts in, 151, 154-55 gospelbooks of, 337-47, 576n133 manuscripts of, 282-83, 546n155,

547n164 motifs of, 236, 242 patronage of, 158

polyglot character of, 341, 347, 466, 570n56 in reign of King Amaury, 333 sculptors, 204, 212, 213, 228 Italian, 226, 273, 455, 597n202 sculpture, 202, 205 figural, 212, 214, 245, 273, 418, plate 7.8m images of Christ in, 226, 227,

plate 7.9d, plate 7.9f

marble, 79

molding, 225, plate 7.8c-i, plate 7.8m nonfigural, 214, plate 7.8a—I

services at, 534n20 south transept, 214, plate 7.2b-e,

plate 7.3v-x construction of, 212

vaulting, plate 7.3y south transept facade, 186, 214-27, 538n56, 540n78, 597n200

and campanile, 243 capitals of, 225, 536n35 date of, 548n180 decorative elements of, 225 godroons on, 214, 225, 245,

538n60, plate 7.8¢ iconography of, 540n80-81 Italian influence on, 226, 227 mosaics of, 240

sculpture (figural), 214, plate 7.8m

sculpture (nonfigural), 214, plate 7.8a-] sources of, 227, 541n89

tympana of, 225, 227, 240, 541n93

spolia in, 212, 536n35, 536n39,

538n61

St. Anne as predecessor of, 136 as state church, 119 stone crosses of, 62

Templar sculpture in, 452

tomb of Baldwin I, 74-75, 506n193,

plate 4.19 tomb of Baldwin II, 114-15, 186,

493n49, 516n143—-44, plate 5.25

tomb of Baldwin III, 328, 567n162, 567n164 tomb of Baldwin IV, 461, 595n175 tomb of Baldwin V, 39, 467-69, 595n175, 597n209, 598n234-35, 599n270, 600n271-6, plate 10.21

True Cross chapels, 391-92

True Cross relics in, 240, 391 ~92

vaulting, 204, plate 7.3h masonry of, 213 vaulting level, 212

voussoirs of, 278, plate 8A.12d-e

western influences in, 225, 538n59

William I’s patronage of, 179, 202-3, 228, 517n4, 532n8-9, 533n18, 533n20, 535n27 workshop, 203, 204, 212, 228, 273,

534n24 diversity of, 538n63 Holy Sepulcher, depiction at Abu Ghosh, 389 Holy sites. See Pilgrimage sites. Holy Week, rituals of, 500n84, 557n1 16 Homs, capture by Zengi, 126

H6pital de Beaune, 281, 557n101

Horns of Hattin, Battle of, 2, 436, 472 Hosios Lukas, 238, 578n160

Hospitaler Church (Abu Ghosh), 11,

382-90, 579n184, plate 9.33a, plate 9.35a—c architecture of, 383

crypt, plate 9.35d—e date of, 579n186

fresco paintings, 379, 383-90, 456, 463, 564n117, 579n193, 580n197-98 artists of, 383, 388, 404

Byzantine influence on, 388, 389 date of, 389 medallions of, 388, 389, 580n206

plan, plate 9.33b Hospitaler Master (painter), 594n162 Hospitalers at Abu Ghosh, 382, 388, 390

bird imagery of, 467, 468,

and Amaury’s Egyptian campaign, 390

Byzantine aspects of, 600n279,

aristocracy in, 281

600n273-76, 600n285

600n284

Christ on, 467, 468 sculpture of, 467, 468

tomb of Fulk, 174, 186

tomb of Godefroy de Bouillon, 37-40, 501n105, 567162, plate 3.1a canopy of, 38, 493n40 damage by Turks, 492n36 date of, 39, 493n49 early illustrations of, 38 European character of, 40, 44 location of, 492n37, 494n38 material of, 493n39 pilgrim accounts of, 39 tombs, 39-40, 174, 186-87, 214, 229, 245, 478, 533n11 transepts, 213 treasury, 460 triporticus, 48, 57, 203, 501n94-95, 536n39 columns of, 213

648

architecture of, 9 and Assassin sect, 393 at Belvoir, 393 at Beth Gibelin, 130, 302, 518n1 i

518n22

cartularies of, 281 at Crac des Chevaliers, 302, 398

fortified holdings of, 15, 123,

515n113 Fulk’s gift to, 505n166 importance to Latin Kingdom, 274, 306, 390, 393, 582n260, 603n7 leadership of, 79 military activities of, 281, 302, 306,

519n22

at Mt. Tabor, 109 patronage of arts, 299, 382, 388, 390,

579n186, 595n172, 603n7

and Saladin, 413 seals of, 170

weaponry of, 555n73

Hospital of St. John (Jerusalem), 67-68, 173, 274-81, 505n168

camparile of, 276, 548n186

care of

the sick in, 278, 556n96,

57n101

date of

construction, 275, 557n102

decoration of, 281 depiction on round maps, 556n100 destruction by Ottomans, 67 excavations of, 554n71 founaing

of, 67

furnishings of, 278, 281 masons’ yard of, 273-74, 278, 281, STF/

Moslem buildings of, 274, 554n70 plans of, 275, 555n74 sculptural fragments of, 275, 278-80, plate 8A.12a—h wards of, 281

workshop of, 278, 442, 556n94, 595n174

Hospital of St. Mary of Jehoshaphat, 65 Hospitals, monastic, 281, 557n101 Hunin, castle of plan of, plate 10.1 Saladin’s siege of, 412

Islam, Crusaders’ knowledge of, 44, 49

495n79

Italians in Latin Kingdom, 68-69, 97, 477,

;

512n79 tole in Crusades, 486n15 Ivory carvings, 1, 157-58, 159, 527n123-24, 529n160, 595n167 Jacobite Christians, 3, 121

as art patrons, 4 at Holy Sepulcher, 406

See also Christians, indigenous. Jacob’s Ladder, 552n32

Jaffa, 299

rebuilding of, 36, 37 Jehoshaphat, valley of holy sites of, 65 See also St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Monastery of. Jerash, Castle of, 83 Jericho Bohemond at, 36

Daniel’s description of, 65

church at, 520n47 Iconography

in medieval imagination, 21

metalworkers, 49, 391 patronage of, 392 Moslem pilgrims to, 473 multiculturalism of, 404-5, 480 pilgrims to, 60-62, 318 Templar workshop of, 441-56 Via Dolorosa, 173 in Work on Geography, 112 See also Damascus Gate chapel; Haram al-Sharif; Holy Sepul-

cher, Church of; Hospital of St John; Templum Domini; Templum Salomonis. Jerusalem, Latin Kingdom of, 2, 55-57 alliances with Byzantine empire, 333 under Baldwin III, 176 bishops, 57, 463 consecration of, 37 at Council of Nablus, 82

iconography of, 510n63, 511n72

holy sites of, 35, 491n14

Ibelin (Yavne, castle), 130, 520n49-50

medieval, 278, 281, 488n41, 549n1, 556n100 marketplace of, 246, 274

Jerusalem, plate 2.5 aerial view of, plate 2.4 Aftimos market, 274

seals of, 511n65 burial of queens in, 113, 516n134, 566n152 canon law of, 82 chancery of, 287 civil war of 1152, 287-88, 558n9

of Christian art, 299 of seals, 90, 511n65

anniversary of conquest, 228, 229,

site-specific, 96-97

Austin canons in, 65, 500n89,

clerical organization of, 500n87

504n142 cemeteries of, 34 as center of the world, 213, 225, 475, 479, 537n54, 543n112, 546n148,

codices of, 14 coinage, 42, 52, 72-74, 89-90, 510n59,

Iconography, Byzantine of Abu Ghosh, 389

in Church of the Nativity, 360, 371 on Crusader coins, 51-53, 290 in manuscript illumination, 105 Marys in, 232 of saints, 366 on seals, 231, 497n37 of Virgin Mary, 388 See also Art, Byzantine. Icons, 3

Boase’s study of, 14 of Church of the Annunciation, 433, 594n166

of Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 62 of Church of the Nativity, 94 Crusader, 406-8, 462-63, 477, 586n332, 587n339 devotional, 95, 163 of Monastery of St. Catherine, 461-62, plate 10.19 Idolatry, Moslem, 49, 495n79 Fulcher on, 44 lle de France, sculpture of, 437

Imagery, Christian, 42 Crusaders’ use of, 43-44 Invention of the Head of St. John the Baptist (Sebaste), 562n93

Crusader rebuilding of, 315 frescoes of, 313-15, 317, 564n115,

plate 8B.16a-e

Iron Bridge (Jisr al-Hadid, Antioch), 302

410

557n109 Christian communities in, 64,

503n128 churches of, 8, 11, 68 cross reliquaries of, 167-69 depiction on seals, 337 De Vogiié’s descriptions of, 7, 8 domed buildings of, 213, 537n52 expulsion of Greek clergy from, 36 fall to Saladin, 2, 251, 469, 472-73

in First Crusade, 30, 32-33, 151, 488n41 fortification of, 412, 587n14 fresco painting in, 461-63 Golden Gate, 34, 135, 225, 229, 391, 543n106 goldsmiths of, 83, 97, 99-100, 167, 513n88-89, 513n91-92

goldsmiths’ quarter of, 100, 512n82, 513n93, 560n54 Herod's Gate, 229 holy sites of, 2 Hospitaler quarter of, 274 importance of pilgrimage to, 564n128

Jaffa gate, 559n20

E

liturgical calendar of, 151, 524n92 Malquisinat Street, 246, 549n1 maps, 411, map 7

649

plate 5.13

bezants, 460, 598n226

billon deniers, 334-35, plate 6.18-22, plate 8B.2, plate 9.1 as colonial society, 484n51 coronation of rulers in, 490n5, 495n1,

495n3 courts of, 331 Crusader mosaics in, 482n9 in earthquake of 1170, 588n36

Enlart’s study of, 10 fortifications of, 9, 12, 121 Frankish colonists of, 3 Greek Orthodox in, 362, 462

importance of Hospitalers to, 274, 306, 390, 393, 582n260, 603n7

importance of pilgrims to, 318

influence of Roman Catholic Church in, 477-78 Italian artists in, 105, 508n19, 512n79 mints of, 529n161

naval strength of, 84 patriarchs, 30, 499n76 under Baldwin 1, 56-57

and Bernard of Valence, 50 elevation of, 34, 35, 37, 490n3, 491n27

installation ceremonies of, 203 seals of, 90, 508n24 support of papacy for, 73 port cities of, 48, 68, 85

Jerusalem, Latin Kingdom of (continued) royal regalia of, 478, 495n5, 507n5

royal succession in, 410 sculptors of, 272-73

Sicilian influence in, 538n59

Syrian Orthodox settlement of, 73 taxation in, 258n226, 460, 598n226 Templars’ defense of, 302

in Third Crusade, 473 thrones of, 495n6 Venetians in, 84 See also Crusader States.

Jerusalem missal, 104, 159-62, 283 calendar of, 162 contents of, 527n127 date of, 162-63

initials of, 162, plate 6.12a—k style of, 528n140

Jisr al-Hadid (Iron Bridge), 302 Jordan River

as pilgrimage site, 65, 491n14 source of, 66, 108

Jubail. See Gibelet.

Kaisheim, reliquaries of, 512n82 Kaisheim Cross Reliquary, 293, 529n152, 560n36 date of, 169 decoration of, 168-69, 529n156 dimensions of, 167

Kerak (castle), 12, 128, 520n44, plate

6.3b-c plan of, plate 6.3a Kharput, castle of: Baldwin II's capti vity at, 83-84 Khirbet al Maffar (palace, Jericho), 334, 361 Kings, European: aid to Latin Kingdom, 412, 587n9 Kings of Jerusalem Byzantine costume of, 333, B92 567n10 Byzantine wives of, 406, 560n52

coronation of, 179, 495n1, 495n3,

558n5 iconography of, 158, 363 nationality of, 477 royal regalia of, 46, 78, 478, 495n5-6 See also Holy Sepulcher, Church of: tombs. Klosterneuburg Altar, 546n164 Knights of St. John. See Hospitalers

Koimesis Master (Abu Ghosh), 389, 390

Koimesis of the Virgin Byzantine iconography of, 570n79

in Church of the Nativity mosa ics,

357 in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 388, 580n219, plate 9.34e, plate 9.35i La Bocquée, valley of, 302 Labors of the month iconography of, 555n82 sculpture of, 276

at St. Mary Latin, 418

Umbro-Roman school of, 338, 479 Manuscript illumination, Crus ader, 14, 16-17, 100-105, 477, 483n29 Boase’s study of, 14

Lahouce (Basses Pyrénées), 323

Landscapes in column paintings, 96, 163,

528n144

in fresco paintings, 313 Langeais (Indre-et Loire), 534n25 Lappets (costume), 435, 592n124 Last Judgment, in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 388, 389 Last Supper in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 238 in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226, 227, 540n83, plate 7.9) in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate

6.8k site of, 282, 469

Latrun capitals, 452, 596n186, 597n213,

600n275, plate 10.16a-¢ Lattakieh, 36 capture by Crusaders, 50, 53 Legates, papal, 34, 36, 477, 490n3 Levantine influence at Belmont Abbey, 323 in Crusader architecture, 476

in Crusader churches, 323, 324 in Holy Sepulcher, 228, 542n95 in mosaics, 364 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, 156

Lions

in Cathedral of St. John (Sebaste),

313, 563n108 of Templar workshop, 565n132,

596n185, plate 10.13v Lisbjerg retable, 299, 561n63 Liturgical processions, 509n38

in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226,

227

reliquaries in, 99, 391

Lombards, in First Crusade, 25 London Centre for the Study of the Crusades, 513n92

Lucca, coinage of, 90, 170, 510n59 Lusignan dynasty (Cyprus), 10 Macpelah, Grotto of, 82

Magi in Church of the Nativity mosaics,

358, 360, 371, 574n111

iconography of, 97, 511n77, 512n 78 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate

6.8d

Magna Mahumeria (al-Bira), 44

plan of, plate 5.24 Mamilla, cemetery of, 66 Mamistra Baldwin III at, 301

capture of, 25

Mamluks, fortifications of, 69 Mamre, 362, 478 Daniel's visit to, 66 Mandorlas, 236, 238 Manuscript illumination Armenian, 341, 466

650

Buchthal’s study of, 14 Byzantine influence in, 13, 155, 337,

338, 477

depictions of Holy Sepulche r on, 82,

508n24

of Jerusalem, 282-85, 465, 466

of reign of Amaury I, 337-47

See also Gospelbook of St. John; Holy Sepulcher, Church of, scriptorium; Jerusalem missal; Psalter of Queen Melisende; index of

manuscripts. Manuscripts, Byzantine, 155, 337-38,

346-47, 526n118

Manuscripts, English, in Church of

Holy Sepulcher, 151, 154-55 Mappaemundi. See Jerusalem: maps. Margat. See Margab Castle. Maronites, 3, 70, 121 artists among, 404 as art patrons, 3 fresco paintings of, 403, 585n303 See also Christians, indigenous. Margab Castle, 12, 527n122 capture of, 53 in earthquake of 1170, 391 Mar Saba (monastery), 577n147, 602n316 Marys at the Tomb on Berlin flask, 294-95, 56042, plate 8B.8b in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 232, 544n135 iconography of, 90, 510n64 in Jerusalem missal, 162, plate 6.12k in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.8s sculpture of, 594n149

Mary’s Well, Church of (Nazareth),

Masons

588n31

of Holy Sepulcher, 60, 136, 203, 278

of Hospital of St. John (Jeruisa lem),

273-74, 278, 281, 397

of Jerusalem, 249

Moslem, 203, 534n24 Masons’ marks, 11, 521n63, 522n8i,

589n53 of Church of St. Anne, 131 of Church of the Annunciation, 417 of Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 60, 501n94, 515n113, 536n32, 541n92, 570n56

of Qubbat al-Miraj, 254

of Tomb of Melisende, plate 8B.26b Master of the Registrum Gregorii,

570n44 Medallions in Church of the Annunciation, 430

in Church of the Nativity mosaics, of cross reliquaries, 168-69, 529n156 of Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh,

°88, 389, 580n206 of Queen Melisende, 156

of Psé

Metalwork, 1, 477 Byzantine, 392

Byzantine influence on, 53 of Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 62 Enlart’s study of, 11 figural sculpture in, 297, 502n111

of Holy Roman Empire, 23 in Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 35, 293, 509n41

miniature sculpture in, 100 of northern Crusader States, 52-54 in reign of Amaury, 409

in reign of Fulk and Melisende, 166 Metalworkers

of Jerusalem, 49, 391 patronage of, 392 Minarets, 245, 275, 548n193 Minor arts, Crusader, 1-2, 4, 482n9, 602n1

Boase’s study of, 13, 14 Minting at Acre, 289, 510n58

in Latin Kingdom, 73, 477 at Tripoli, 171 at Tyre, 90, 289, 510n58

Mirabel (Migdal-Afeq, Castle), 288, 558n7

Mitre Reliquary (Church of St. John the Baptist), 297-99, plate 8B.10a-c

materials of, 560n56 Monasteries Byzantine, 65, 66, 366, 504n150, 577n148

of Constantinople, 557n101 johannes Phocas on, 471, 602n316

Greek Orthodox, 64, 322, 462, 550n14 pilgrims to, 404 on Mt. Tabor, 66, 109 Monastic movement, Christian, 165, 366, 577n147

Monreale, Cathedral of, 574n105 sculpture of, 455, 456, 597n213

Mons Glavianus (castle), 87, 509n47 Mons Peregrinus (Qalat Sandjil), 54 date of, 498n63

Montferrand, Castle of, 517n7 siege by Zengi, 126, 166-67, 529n148

Montfort (castle), excavation of, 12, 15 Mont Gisard (Tel Gezer), 412 Montjoie. See St. Samuel, Church of (Neby Samwil) Montreal, Castle of (Shaubak), 506n181,

plate 4.15a—b construction of, 69-70 Saladin’s attack on, 393 Monuments destruction of, 17

De Vogiié’s study of, 6 of Edessa, 2 Enlart’s study of, 11

German scholarship on, 483n18 photographs of, 7

of Tripoli, 2

Monza ampullae, 294, 560n42, 574n111 Mosaics of Bab al-Silsila, 225

Byzantine influence on, 13, 14, 238 of Church of the Nativity, 62, 66, 155, 238, 501n104, 525n103, 551n21 Anastasis in, 358

ancestors of Christ in, 360, 364,

378, 576n130, plate 9.23a-d angels in, 352-53, 354, 358, 360, 364, 379, 578n172, plate 9.9,

plate 9.22a—b in apse, 362

artists of, 351, 353-54, 476 Ascension in, 358, 363, plate

9.12a, plate 9.13a Byzantine influence on, 357, 371, 378, 576n137 Cross of Glory in, 359, 361, 576n131, plate 9.20a Doubting Thomas in, 358, 363, 364, 576n131, plate 9.12a-c

ecumenical councils in, 358-364,

plate 9.17-20a Ankara, 359 Antioch, 360, 362, plate 9.18, plate 9.20a borders of, 364 Chalcedon, plate 9.17a—-b Constantinople, 352, 353, 359, 362, 573n80, plate 9.15-16 dates of, 574n114-15, 575n120

Sardika, 360, 362, plate 9.19-20a Entry into Jerusalem in, 358, 363,

364 in Grotto, 155, 360, 371-78, 409, 525n103, 578n155, plate 9.29fn Hebrew Patriarchs in, 357

Koimesis of the Virgin in, 357 Magi in, 358, 360, 371, 574n111

medallions in, 353

Nativity in, 371-78, plate 9.29f-n in nave, 347-64, plate 9.10-11, plate 9.15-16, plate 9.20b-c

nonfigural, 364 in north transept, 358, 362, 371, 573n91, plate 9.12a-c, plate 9.13a-b

Presentation in the Temple in, 357 in south transept, 358, 361, 362,

576n131, plate 9.14

Transfiguration in, 109, 358, 363,

364

Tree of Jesse in, 360, 363, 364, 378,

384, 575n130 vine-scroll, 364

651

362, 363, 364, 575n127-28 on western wall, 360 Crusader, 4, 482n11

Byzantine influence on, 13, 14, 238

in Latin Kingdom, 482n9 Daniel's account of, 65, 231, 234

of Daphni, 238, 578n160 of European churches, 225 of Haram al-Sharif, 240

of Holy Sepulcher, 155, 229-43, 245, 494n51, 539n68, 543n109, 544n126, 545n142, 560n48

aedicule, 230, 231-32, 233, 544n127 Annunciation in, 231 in apses, 231 Ascension in, 231, 234, 235, 236,

238, 242, 546n152, 546n156,

546n158, plate 7.10b Byzantine, 230, 233, 234, 235-36, 544n126, 546n152

Calvary Chapel, 230, 233-43, 545n144, 546n148, 546n152

Chapel of Golgotha, 233, 235 colorism of, 242 Crucifixion in, 234, 238 decorative motifs of, 240-41 Deésis in, 234

Deposition in, 235-36 Entombment in, 232, 235, 528n151 Eucharist in, 238

in Franks’ Chapel, 230, 234, 576n133

iconography of, 231 images of Christ in, 225, 230-31, 232-33, 235, 236, 238, 543n110-13, plate 7.10b inscriptions on, 232-33, 236, 242-43 Last Supper in, 234, 238 Marys at the Tomb in, 232, 544n135 Moslem models for, 225 motifs of, 236

Old Testament prophets in, 234, 235, 236, 242, 545n142, 546n153 Pentecost in, 545n142 on south transept facade, 240 Levantine, 364 mother-of-pearl, 361, 364, 575n116,

576n131

in pilgrims’ narratives, 231, 369 of Ravenna, 361 Sicilian, 238 I,

Je

Ommayad, 360, 361 Mosaics, Byzantine, 243

of Greece, 242

in Holy Sepulcher, 230, 233, 234,

235-36, 44n126

Moslems alliance with Christians, 51 Assassin sect of, 393, 558n11, 582n257 holy sites of, 82 influence on Crusader art, 14 razing of Christian buildings, 16 use of figural sculpture, 596n187 See also Ayyubids; Fatimids; Mamuluks; Ottamans; Seljuks; Turks. Mosque al-Agsa. See Templum Domini. Mosque al-Omariyya, plate 8A.10 minarets of, 275, 276, 555n79 Mosque an-Nisa, 259 Mosques, conversion to churches, 498n65 Mount of Olives, 504n146 capitals on, 259, 553n52 in First Crusade, 30 in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226,

540n85 holy sites of, 65 Mount Sinai, 97, 511n78 in pilgrim narratives, 112 Mount Sion, 503n142 depiction in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 389 See also St. Mary, Church of (Mount Sion).

Mount Tabor, 36 Church of the Savior on, 417, 515n118 Daniel's visit to, 66 Mount Tabor, Monastery of, 64, 589n49, plate 5.23 architecture of, 109-10 sculptural fragments of, 437, 439,

452, 594n147, 594n154, plate 10.12a—b Multiculturalism of Crusader art, 15-16, 357, 404, 603n10 of Crusader coinage, 480 of Jerusalem, 404-5

John of Wiirzburg on, 405, 480 Muristan. See Hospital of St. John (Jerusalem).

Museum of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, 275-76, 278, 297

Nazareth capitals in, 418, 436 Templar sculpture in, 452

Nablus, 563n105 capture by Crusaders, 48 Council of, 82, 113 Daniel at, 66 as pilgrimage site, 36 Nativity Byzantine iconography of, 578n160 in Church of St. Sergius, 372 depiction of manger in, 372 mosaics of, 371-78, plate 9.29f-n in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.8¢ in Twelve Feasts icon, 408

Nativity, Church of (Bethlehem), 358, 378, 479, plate 2.3, plate 9.5-9.7 apse, plate 9.6

mosaics of, 362 bema, 357-58, 389, 471, 573n89, plate 9.25 inscriptions of, 578n163 Boase’s study of, 12 campanile of, 528n146

capitals of, 266, 554n54 column paintings, 91-97, 163-65,

283-85, 315, 360, 364-71, 528n141, 574n108 artists of, 97, 366, 370, 586n332 Byzantine influence on, 317, 366, 370 date of, 578n163 of Elijah, 163-65, 283, 528n145, 546n168, plate 6.13a—c landscapes in, 96, 163, 528n144 pilgrims in, 564n124~25, plate 10.17b-d pilgrims’ narratives of, 285 saints on, 299, 315, 318, 528n145 of St. Anne Nikopoia, 96, plate 8A.16 of St. Anthony, 366, 462, 577147, plate 9.26c of St. Bartholomew, 366, 370-7 ul

plate 9.28c of St. Brasius, 96-97, 370, 462,

511n72, 598n239 date of, 163

of St. Cataldus, 283, plate 8A.14

of St. Cosmas, 366, 577n143, 577n145, plate 9.28b of St. Damian, 462, 577n143, 577n145, plate 10.17£ of St. Euthymius, 366, 577n147, plate 9.26d of St. Fusca, 366, 369-70, plate 9.27a graffiti on, 602n334 of St. George, 317, plate 8B.19a—b

of St. James, 96, 456, plate 10.17a

of St. John the Baptist, 317-18, 369, plate 8B.20 of St. John the Evangelist, 238, 366, plate 9.28a

of St. Knute, 8B.17a-b, 163, 564n118, 564n125, 577n145 of St. Leo, 96, 366, 369, 370, plate 9.27¢ of St. Leonard, 462, plate 10.17e of St. Macarius, 283, plate 8A.18 of St. Marina I, 366, 369, 577n152, plate 9.27b of St. Marina II, plate 9.284 of St. Olaf, 96, 163, 285, 317, 564n118, 564n125, 577145, plate 8B.18a—c of St. Onuphrius, 283, plate 8A.19

of St. Sabas, 366, 462, 577n147,

plate 9.26b

652

of St. Stephen, 283, 462, plate

8A.17 of St. Theodosius, 366, 5771 47,

plate 9.26a of St. Vincent, 283, plate 84.15

of Virgin and Child Galak totro p-

housa, 163-65, plate 6.14a of Virgin and Child Glykophilous a, 91-96, plate 5.14a-e artists of, 97

background of, 96

date of, 96, 97, 163 as icon, 93

inscriptions on, 94-95, 96, 299)

511n68 location of, 95-96 pigment of, 94

pilgrim images in, 96, 317, 564n125, plate 5.14f-g coronations in, 48 Daniel’s account of, 64

Deésis Chapel, 388 fresco paintings of, 165-66 De Vogiié’s analysis of, 7

Grotto, 96, 491n22, 512n78, plate

9.29b-e bronze doors of, 62, 360, 501n104, 574n110, 574n115

Crusader artists in, 372, 378 Daniel's visit to, 66 mosaics of, 155, 360, 371-78, 409, 525n103, 578n155, plate 9.29f-—n

plan, plate 9.29a inscriptions bilingual, 347, 350, 351-54, 357, 358, 362, 378, 571n57-62, plate 9.8a—b Greek, 352, 353

Latin, 360, 372

paleography of, 575n120, 575n 123

mosaics, 62, 66, 238, 501n104, artists of, 476

551n21

Byzantine influence in, 371, 378, 576n137

nonfigural, 364 Tree of Jesse, 360, 363, 378, 384,

575n130 Virgin and Child Platytera,

357,

362, 363, 364, 575n127—28 Moslem visitors to, 578n163 nave, 573n92, plate 9.5, plate 9.7, plate 9.22c, plate 9.25 nave mosaics, 347-64, plate 9.1011, plate 9.15-16, plate 9.20b-c 2]

378, 576n130, plate 9 angels in, 352-53, 354, 358, 360,

364, plate 9.9, plate 9.22a—b artists of, 351, 353-54 Byzantine influence in, 357 Cross of Glory, 359, 361, 576n131, plate 9.20a

cumenical councils, 352, 353,

358-64, 573n80, plate 9.15-16, plate 9.17—20a north transept mosaics, 362, 371, 573n91, plate 9.12a-—c, plate 9.13a—b Anastasis, 358

\scension, 358, 363, plate 9.12a, plate 9.13a Doubting Thomas in, 358, 363, 364, 576n131, plate 9.12a—c as pilgrimage church, 165, 479 pilgrims’ narratives of, 36, 351 rebuilding of, 48

recovery by First Crusaders, 30 redecoration (1169), 333, 347, 570n57, 578n13 Byzantine influence in, 378

Crusader-Byzantine cooperation in, 350-51, 357, 360, 378, 406

Notre Dame, Cathedral of (Chartres),

397, 546n153, 562n82, 591n109 architectural canopies of, 438

Notre Dame, Cathedral of (Tortosa), 11,

259, 302-5, 322, 562n89, plate 8B.12e-f apses of, 562n86

buttresses of, plate 8B.12d

chapel of, 562n85 in earthquake of 1170, 562n87 plan of, plate 8B.12a west facade of, plate 8B.12b-c Notre-Dame-des-Doms (Avignon), 501n97 Notre Dame in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Abbey of. See St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Monastery of. Nubians, 406 Numismatics. See Coinage.

Syrian Orthodox in, 378, 404 Venetians in, 370, 378

Omens, 486n19

Fulcher of Chartres on, 26 Ommayads, 253

western wall mosaics, 360 wooden doors of, 539n67 workshop of, 365, 371, 378 Nazareth

after fall of Jerusalem, 588n28 archbishopric of, 113, 414, 480,

588n28, 588n30 seals of, 594n165 building materials of, 477 churches of, 64, 504n159, 588n31,

589n42, 589n46 Daniel's visit to, 66, 504n158 in earthquake of 1170, 414-15

ecclesiastical holdings of, 414 holy sites of, 2,321 Orthodox communities at, 440 pilgrimages to, 414, 595n166

pilgrims’ narratives of, 285, 595n166 Tancred’s control of, 36

Nazareth capitals. See Annunciation, Church of (Nazareth): capitals Nea Moni (Chios), 236, 238 Near East, 4, 10

irchaeology of, 9 church and state in, 46, 73, 491n27 English interest in, 9, 482n3, 482n18

impact of European art on, 10 indigenous Christians in, 3 port cities of, 36 Nebek, 404

frescoes of, 403, 585n303 Neby Samwil. See St. Samuel, Church of Nerezi, fresco cycle of, 236, 389 Nicaea capture of, 25

ecumenical councils, 359, 362 Normans, in First Crusade, 24

See also Vatican gospelbook. Paris missal. See Jerusalem missal. Pater Noster, Church of (Mount of Olives), 564n121 Patriarchs, Hebrew cave of, 509n28

in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 357 in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383 relics of, 66 Patriarchs of Jerusalem, 499n76 under Baldwin I, 56-57 and Bernard of Valence, 50 elevation of, 34, 35, 37, 490n3, 491n27

installation ceremonies of, 203

nationality of, 477 seals of, 90, 508n24

relics of, 561n63

date of, 361

scribe of, 341

support of papacy for, 73 Patronage, of Crusader art, 34, 16, 299,

Oboles (coins), 170

south transept mosaics, 358, 362,

576n131, plate 9.14

miniatures, 345-46

patronage of, 346, 347

324, 404, 474, 480, 481n6, 542n98

by women, 603n10

Ottomans, 67

Pentecost mosaics of, 545n142

Paintings after fall of Jerusalem, 466

of Bethlehem, 68, 511n66 Boase’s study of, 13 of Byzantine court, 347 Byzantine influence on, 476 of County of Tripoli, 383 of Deésis Chapel (Church of the Nativity), 165-66, plate 6.15d drapery in, 366, 577n146 landscapes in, 96, 163, 528n144 monumental, 511n72 panel, 3 in reign of Fulk and Melisende, 163-66 of Scandinavian Saints, 68, 505n172 See also Fresco paintings; Manuscript illumination, Crusader; Nativity, Church of (Bethlehem),

column paintings. Palestine. See Syria-Palestine. Pankrator monastery (Constantinople), 557n101 Paradise, Vision of: in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 388, plate 9.34b, plate 9.35g Paradise Master (Abu Ghosh), 389

Paris gospelbook, 576n133

artist of, 345, 346, 347 Byzantine style of, 341, 346-47 contents of, 569n31 Crusader character of, 339 date of, 347, 570n55 evangelist portraits in, 341, 346, plate 9.3c, plate 9.3f initials, 337, 569n35, plate 9.3b, plate 9.3d-e

653

in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.8v

site of, 282

Petra, military campaigns at, 175 Philippi. See Banyas Photography of Crusader castles, 12, 483n34 of Near Eastern sites, 7, 482n18

Pilgrimage road churches, 479 of Cluniac Order, 541n94

influence on Holy Sepulcher, 228, 245, 478, 535n30, 541n94

Pilgrimage routes, security of, 36 Pilgrimage sites, 13, 16, 44 art of, 16, 299, 409, 474, 476, 478

Austin canons’ control of, 471 of Bethlehem, 2 Bohemond of Taranto at, 36-37 Crusaders’ attention to, 44

destruction by Saladin, 473 of First Crusade, 35-37 of Hebron, 35

in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226 iconography of, 155, 232, 363, 409, 511n77, 560n50, 586n335 of Jericho, 35

Latin inscriptions of, 432 of Nazareth, 2,321

programmatic decoration of, 318 rebuilding of, 64-65 as theme of Abu Ghosh, 389 Turks’ control of, 5

Pilgrims, 13 accommodations for, 64

artists among, 97 dangers to, 67

Pilgrims (continued)

German, 393 to Holy Sepulcher, 172 importance of Templum Domini to, 253 importance to Latin Kingdom, 318, 564n128 knowledge of Orthodox sects, 585n316 protection by Hospitalers, 67 in reign of Amaury, 404 of reign of Baldwin II, 112-13 in reign of Fulk and Melisende, 172 Theodorich on, 585n308 to Tortosa, 302 in Virgin and Child Glykophilousa painting, 96, 317, plate 5.14f-¢ Pilgrims’ narratives, 10, 13, 17, 44, 64,

478, 482n3, 491n16 church architecture in, 8, 14 of Church of the Annunciation, 589n58 of Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 60-62, 63, 243, 369, 501n105, 507n17, 535n28 of Church of the Nativity, 351 description of sculpture, 591n103 of Holy Sepulcher inscriptions, 230

Icelandic, 285, 286, 317, 557n109

mosaics in, 231, 369

of reign of Baldwin III, 285-86

of reign of Fulk and Melisende, 173 sculpture in, 591n103 of Templum Domini (Jerusalem),

523n86 of tomb of Godefroy, 39

See also Daniel, abbot of Chernigov;

Johannes Phocas; John of

Wurzburg; Saewulf;

Theodorich (in Personal

Proper Name Index).

Pisans, 477 coins of, 41, 510n59 in First Crusade, 36, 37

Plaimpied, sculpture of, 437-38, 439,

440, 591n109, 594n162, 595n167

Portraits

on Crusader coinage, 51-52, 172,

497n41, 497n45 of evangelists, 341, 345, 346, 366, 569n40, plate 9.3c, plate 9.3f, plate 9.4a, plate 9.4c_f of Manuel I Comnenus, 351, 357-58, 573n90, 602n319 of Melisende, 175 royal, 175, 532n3, 572n75 Pottery, Crusader, 16, 602n1 Praemonstratensians, 247 Presentation in the Temple in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 357 in Crac des Chevaliers frescoes, 402, 584n293, 585n303, plate 9.37g-h

Prison of St. Peter (Jerusalem), 276 Prophets, Old Testament in Church of the Annunciation, 591n95

in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 235, 236, 242, 545n142, 546n153 Provence, sculpture of, 455, 456,

597n202 Psalter of Queen Melisende, 13, 104,

137-58, 478, 483n29 Anastasis miniature of, 230, 231, 296, 543n112, 544n121

Anglo-Saxon ornamentation of, 525n106

in Crusader art, 435, 592n126 in Psalter of Melisende, 435

Qalaat Seman, 538n65

Qalat Sandjil, 54, 489n63 Qalat al-Subayba. See Subeiba

Qara, 404

frescoes of, 403, 584n300, 585n303 Qaryat al-Inab (Abu Ghosh), 8, 313

Qinnasrin, battle of, 121, 518n10

Qubbat al-Mirraj. See Templum Domi nj

Qubbat al-Nasr (Dome of Victory), 472

Qubbat al-Silsila (Dome of the Chain,

Jerusalem), 253, 273, 552n36,

Annunciation in, 379, plate 6.8a

artists of, 155-56, 158, 476

Byzantine elements of, 155-58, 592n111 calendar, 137, 151, 154, 158, 561n61,

plate 6.9a-c zodiac of, 156

commissioning of, 154, 155 contents of, 523n88 date of, 154, 157, 231, 524n100 Deésis in, 388

East-West intermingling in, 231, 242 gold decoration of, 156

iconographic sources of, 155 incipits of, 137, 156 initials of, plate 6.9d—-m Italo-Levantine influence on, 156

litany of, 151, 155, 158 mandorla in, 238

medallions of, 156 New Testament miniatures of, 137,

155, 232-33, plate 6.8a—x

Ascension in, 238

plate 8A.4

Qubbat Sulaiman, 259 al-Qureiya (Ile de Graye), 70

Qusair (Cursat, castle of), 121, 518n9

Rabula Gospels, 295, 545n148

Rafaniyah, capture of, 87 Ramla

capitals of, 259, 563n97 cistern of St. Helena, 213, 537n47

as pilgrimage site, 307

seals of, 559n23 Ramla-Lydda, 491n14 battles at, 49, 496n21-22

church of, 498n64 destruction to, 35 First Crusaders at, 30

restrictions on access to, 6

Ragga, capture of, 49 Ravenna mosaics of, 361

sarcophagi of, 600n281

panel headpieces of, 155, 164, plate

Recklinghausen ivory, 595n167 Redeemer, Church of. See St. Mary Latin, Church of (St. Mary

Psychomachia in, 435 Queen Morphia in, 151, 524n100

Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar), 518n18

Regalia, royal, 317, 478, 496n8

Romanesque elements of, 156

Relics

6.9n-v prayers in, 151, 155, 156, 158

role of King Fulk in, 154, 156

scribe of, 155, 158 stars in, 465

three Marys in, 295 treasure binding, 137-38, 154,

523n88, 524n95, 567n10, plate 6.10a—c cross motifs on, 156-57, 158

ivory carvings of, 157-58, 159, 333, 527n123-24, 529n160, 592n126

silk embroidery of, 156-57, 158, 159, 525n108, 526n115, 529n160

See also Manuscript illumination, Crusader. Psalters, 155

of northern Europe, 156 Psychomachia in Church of the Annunciation sculpture, 435, 436

654

Minor, Jerusalem)

of Latin kings, 46, 478, 495n5

of Apostles, 298

of Church of St. Mary Latin, 582n249, 582n255 of Church of the Nativity, 561n63

of Constantinople, 28 Gormond’s gift of, 297 of Hebrew patriarchs, 66 Henry the Lion’s acquisition of, 582n24546

in pilgrim narratives, 582n249 removal to Europe, 48, 68, 83, 492n32

of saints, 298, 299 of St. James the Greater, 247, 549n8

of St. John the Baptist, 298, 299

in Work on Geography, 113 Reliquaries of Antioch, 487n27 Byzantine, 512n85

of Church of St. John the Baptist, 297-99, 560n56, plate 8B.10a—c

yn of, 62

1s of Holy Sepulcher on, 8n24 502n110 Lance, 28

xical processions, 99, 391 1 of Fulk and Melisende, 66-69

Mitre Reliquary; True Cross olics.

Re

m, medieval concept of, 500n89

Resurrection, Church of (Jerusalem). See

Holy Sepulcher, Church of (Jerusalem). Re

tion, Church of (Nablus), 415,

RI

2,8

563n108, 588n39, plate 10.2

Rh

Valley, sculpture of, 437, 439, 479, 593n143

Riccardiana Psalter, 466 Rings, royal, 78, 507n5 Rossano Gospels, 408 Rufolo Palace (Ravello), 506n186 XN

Sabil of Suleiman (Jerusalem), 55, plate 4.11 Sacro catino (vessel), 48, 496n17

Platerias, 214 reliquaries of, 293, 581n240, plate 8B.7a—b

Santo Stefano (Bologna), 549n195 Saone, castle of, 12, 15, plate 5.20a-e

Iphegenia in, 434 King Eglypus in, 434, 439, 440, plate 10.5k

273 565n136 of Latin Kingdom, 272-73

Templar, 404 Sculpture

n Psalter of Queen Melisende, 137,

of Abruzzi, 227, 541n90

151, 155, plate 6.9p—q elics of, 298, 299

of Apulia, 397, 455, 456, 479

andinavian, 68, 505n172 eneration of, 378, 578n164

of Campania, 455, 456 of Cathedral of Monreale, 455, 456, 597n213

Danieli Bible, 463-66 lor of, 465-66

contents of, 599n255

nitials, plate 10.20a—g rigins of, 598n255 script of, 465, 466

Frediano, Church of (Lucca), 225, 539n71 San Marco (Venice), sculpture of, 225, 538n63

tiago de Compostella architecture of, 225, 228, 397 cult of St. James at, 434

pilgrimages to, 247, 549n8

588n39

8B.3.a—b Sculptors, 437 of Belvoir castle, 397

Italian, 455-56, 508n19, 541n90,

53, 295, 296, 498n49, 545n148 x lid of, 378

583n283,

589n60, plate 10.4d, plate 10.1 animal, 431, 590n74 apostles, 434-35 archivolts, 418, 430-31, 590n64, plate 10.4a—

Scheyern Cross reliquary, 290, 291, plate

aintonge, churches of, 591n90

no, sculpture of, 455, 456, 597n213 lemente (Rome), 541n91 ta Sanctorum reliquary (Vatican),

418-30,

Christ in, 431, 434, plate 10.5d,

of Holy Sepulcher, 204, 212, 213, 228,

hem): column paintings.

9

of Chapel of the Flagellation (Jerusalem), 452 of Church of the Annunciation

360, 362, plate 9.19-20a Savior, Church of (Mt. Tabor), 417, 515n118 Scandelion (castle), 70, 130 Scandinavians, in Latin Kingdom, 68, 285, 317, 557n109

ainte-Foi (Conques), 228 int-Gilles-du-Gard (France), 455

ilso Nativity, Church of (Bethle-

583n268

of castles,

rebuilding of, 105, 108, 514n109 Saracens coinage of, 73, 89, 169, 530n165 destruction of Bethlehem, 491n13 at siege of Jerusalem, 32 threat to pilgrims, 67 Sarcophagi, 468, 600n279-83 See also Tombs. Sardika ecumenical council, mosaics of,

439 French, 565n136

liturgical calendars, 524n93

393-98,

construction of, 515n110-11

Saidnaya, Monastery of, 404, 462,

English, 561n61

1U.01

Byzantine origin of, 105 capture of, 53° chapel of, 112

of Church of the Annunciation, 436,

on Byzantine coinage, 51, 497n36

436, ple

of Belvoir % astle,

583n271, 583n274, 584n291 plate 9.36c-h date of, 594n146 of Bethany, 82, 131, 508n22 Boase’s study of, 13

Safitha (Chastel Blanc), 12, 302, 562n82

585n305

in Church of the Annunciation

of Burgundy, 437, 479, 594n164

plate 10.5f Doubting Thomas in, 434 figural, 418-30, 565n130, 583n283 593n137, 594n155, plate 10.4a-j, plate 10.7-8

King Hyrtacus in, 434, plate 10.51 Psychomachia in, 435, 436 Romanesque elements of, 436-37, 439-40, 593n141, 594n164 St. James the Greater in, 434, 592n124, plate 10.5h-j St. Peter in, 431, 434 Tabitha in, 434, plate 10.5e voussoirs, 430-31, 590n72, 590n74-75 classicism in, 450, 455, 456

of Convent of Bethany, 82, 131, 508n22, plate 6.4b-—c of Crac des Chevaliers, 9, 584n291 of Damascus, 564n110 diversity of, 455

Enlart’s study of, 11

of England, 471 of Etampes, 438, 591n109

figural, 82, 131, 318-19, 441,

of French churches, 431, 592n109 in Gothic architecture, 397 of Ile de France, 437 pagan, 4H

of

of Plaimpied, 437-38, 439, 440, 591n109, 594n162, 595n167

of Provence, 455, 456, 597n202 of Rhone Valley, 437, 439, 479,

593n143° Romanesque, 273, 455, 480, 546n172, 547n172, 583n277 of Salerno, 455, 456, 597n213 of San Marco (Venice), 225, 538n 63

of Vienne, 437, 438, 439, 593n143 Sculpture, Crusader acanthus, 82, 205, 212, 266, 404, plate /.b6e-g

502n110-111, 508n22 Holy Sepulcher, 212, 245, 273, 596n178, plate 7.8m

aedicule, 79, 82, 508n20-21, 508n23

Bethphage in, 540n83, 540n86 Christ in, 226, plate 7.9d, plate 7.9f Last Supper in, 226, 227, 540n83, plate 7.9) Lazarus in, 226, 227, 540n80 Mount of Olives in, 226, 540n85

on tomb of Baldwin V, 467, 468 in metalwork, 297, 502n111 miniature, 100 Moslems’ use of, 596n187 nonfigural, plate 7.8a—l

in pilgrims’ narratives, of Qubbat al-Mi' raj, 261,

591n10 553

Sculpture, Crusader (continued) in reign of Amaury, 409 of Sebaste, of St. Mary of St. Mary of Templar 468

319, 397 Latin, 418 Magdalene, 278 workshop, 442, 450, 451,

in Holy Sepulcher, 452 in Museum of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, 452

in Tomb of the Virgin, 452 of Templum Salomonis, 442

Dikka, 450, 451, 596n183, 596n185

See also Capitals; Spolia.

Seals, 1 Byzantine, 231, 497n37, 531n190

of European rulers, 496n8 Seals, Crusader, 90-91, 496n8, 559n23 of Baldwin IV, 414

clerical regalia on, 511n72 of First Crusade, 40

iconography of, 90, 511n65 of reign of Fulk and Melisende, 172 Seals, ecclesiastical, 531n192

of Aimery, patriarch of Antioch, 172

Anastasis on, 230-31

of Evremar of Chocques, 90, 511n65 of Fulcher of Angouléme, 172, 230, 231, 296, 544n120, 544n123

of Gormond, patriarch of Jerusalem,

90

Greek inscriptions of, 230 of Heraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem,

544n123 of Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 90, 508n24 of Letard, archbishop of Nazareth, 594n165 of William I, patriarch of Jerusalem, 90, 172, 295, 510n63, 511n72, plate 5.2

Sebaste

bishopric of, 113 capitals of, 259, 319 churches of, 11, 64, 306, 309-13 Daniel at, 66, 504n156 diocese of, 563n105 sculpture of, 397 Seljuks, 56, 69 defeat of Manuel I Comnenus, 412 threat to Edessa, 299 Sens arches of, 537n46 Gothic church of, 313, 478 Sephoris, 460, 472, 588n38 Baldwin IV at, 460 as pilgrimage site, 566n139

Settlements, Crusader, 44 fortifications of, 520n53 indigenous Christians in, 42, 485n51 Settlers, European: in Crusader States, 86, 119, 406, 474, 477

Shaftesbury Psalter, 524n97

Shayzar, 125, 300, 519n29 Sicily

fleet of, 410 monuments of, 479

Siege engines, 30 Silk weaving, 156, 525n109-10

Silversmithing, niello inlay on, 53 Sirens, sculptural, 319, 565n134, 596n187

Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, 556n95, 603n8 Solomon’s temple, depictions of,

552n34 Spolia, 14, 16, 212, 266, 538n63 in Crusader churches, 308

of Qubbat al-Mi raj, 253 of Templar workshop, 441, 451,

595n170, 596n186-87 of Templum Domini, plate 10.15a—d

of Templum Salomonis, 442, plate 10.14a—-d

See also Sculpture. St. Albans psalter, 155, 524n97 St. André le Bas, Church of (Vienne),

438 St. Anne, Church of (Jerusalem), 8, 319,

503n134, 522n71, 565n138,

plate 6.6b-g

rebuilding of, 30 St. George, Orthodox Monastery of, 585n302 s St. Gilles, Church of Jerusalem), 55,

499n72

St. James, Armenian Church of, 434 St. James, Cathedral of (Jerusalem ),

247-49, 503n138, plate 8A.2c capitals of, plate 8A.2b chapels of, 249 Melisende’s patronage of, 247 plan of, plate 8A.2a

St. Jean d’Acre, 302 arches of, 537n47 St. John, Cathedral of (Sebaste), 8, 306,

309-13, 477, 563n104, plate 8B.15b

capitals of, 311-313, 319, 418,

563n107-8, 564n110, plate 8B.15c-1 corbels of, 319, 565n135 lintels of, 313

plan of, 563n106, plate 8B.15a Prison of St. John in, 563n105

rebuilding of, 415 vaulting of, 478

arches of, 213 architecture of, 133, 135-36

St. John, Church of (Beirut), 70-71, 306, plate 4.16a—c

frescoes of, 579n191

St. John, Church of (Gaza), 308-9, plate

Byzantine influence on, 72, 135 Melisende’s patronage of, 133, 136 plan of, plate 6.6a rebuilding of, 64-65, 246

Romanesque aspects of, 136 royal endowments of, 133

St. Anne, Church of (Sephoris), 321-22, 522n80, 565n138-39, 588n38,

plate 8B.24a plan, plate 8B.24b rebuilding of, 415 St. Bénigne, Church of (Dijon), 431 St. Catherine, Monastery of (Mount Sinai), 97, 478 doors of, 539n67 icons of, 363, 575n128 Six Saints icon, 461-62, 598n238,

plate 10.19

Twelve Feasts icon, 406-8, 586n332,

plate 9.38

date of, 586n332, 587n339 St. Denis (France), 39, 431, 493n48 arches of, 537n46 artists of, 228 cloisters of, 60 dedication of, 542n104 doors of, 539n67 renovation of, 203

sculptural program of, 546n153

west facade of, 225 St. Gabriel, Church of (Nazareth), 588n31

St. George, Cathedral of (Lydda), 249, 307, 563n99

destruction of, 488n39

656

corbels of, 319

8B.14b-d capitals of, 309 plan, plate 8B.14a portal of, 309, 563n102

St. John, Church of (Gibelet), 11, 70, 136,

306, plate 4.17a—b baptistery of, 506n186, plate 4.17c corbels of, 319 Romanesque aspects of, 72

St. John, Church of (Ramla), 306-7, 322,

plate 8B.13a—d

St. John Lateran, basilica of, 502ni11

St. John the Baptist, Church of (Jerusalem), 274, 281

as conventual church, 557n1()2 sculpture fragments of, 278

St. John the Baptist, Greek Or church of (Muristan),

°

14 St. Joseph, Church of (Nazareth)

588n31, 588n42 St.-Julien-de-Jonzy, Church of, 431

St. Katerine de Montgisart, Church of, 472 St. Lazarus, Convent of (Bethany) Melisende’s patronage of, 131, 246, 285, 521n57-62 Yvetta at, 133, 137

St. Lazarus, Order of, 505n165

St. Martin, Monastery of (Kaisheim), 167 St. Mary, Church of (Mount Sion), 8, 173227 Coenaculum, 469-71, 477, 478,

557n104, 601n296, 601n300, plate 10.22

-ation of, 601n297 -nosaic of, 601n301 Daniel's account of, 65, 469, 503n140 Enlart’s study of, 11 foundation of, 503n141 Gothic architecture of, 470, 477, 601n305 pilgrims’ narratives of, 282

St.

Mary

in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Monastery of, 36, 90 Baldwin I's gifts to, 504n144 Benedictines at, 524n90

ecclesiastical holdings of, 565n139 excavation of, 521n66 fortification of, 131, 579n190

Melisende’s patronage of, 151 plan of, plate 6.5 tombs of, 113, 133

. Mary la Grande. See St. Mary Mag-

or

dalene, Church of (St. Mary

Major). ~

. Mary Latin, Church of (St. Mary Minor, Jerusalem), 68, 274, 505n168, plate 8A.11a cloister of, 538n65 Crusader elements of, 275 ecclesiastical holdings of, 379, 381,

382, 555n86 excavations of, 554n71

figural sculpture of, 418 on maps, 281

portal of, 276-78, 319, 555n81 relics of, 582n249, 582n255

tympana of, 583n280 voussoirs of, plate 8A.11b-d . Mary Magdalene, Church of (St. Mary Major), 68, 274, 505n168, 555n79

on maps, 281 sculpture fragments of, 278

. Mary Major. See St. Mary Magdalene, Church of (St. Mary Major) t. Mary Minor. See St. Mary Latin,

iS)

Church of (St. Mary Minor, Jerusalem).

Viary of the Germans (German Hospital), 67, 405, 584, 586n318 Gate of, 505n165 Mary of the Sepulcher of Our Lady (Tyre), 110, 515n120 St. Maurice, Cathedral of (Vienne), 594n162

capitals of, 438, 439, 440, 591n109, 594n149

Paul, Cathedral of (Ascalon), 299,

plate 8B.11a—b St. Paul, Church of (Tarsus), 25, 486n18 st. Peter, Cathedral of (Antioch), 28, 519n30 in earthquake of 1170, 391

t. Peter in Gallicantu (Jerusalem), capi-

tals of, 319, 554n54, 554n62,

plate 8A.9d-e

St. Polyeuktos, Church of (Constantino-

ple), 468 St. Porphyrius, Church of (Gaza), 563n101

St. Saba, Monastery of, 577n147, 602n316

St. Samuel, Church of (Neby Samwil),

247, 549n6, plate 8A.1 Melisende’s patronage of, 549n5

St. Sergius, Church of (Gaza), 372

St. Sernin, Church of (Toulouse), 24,

228, 541n94

St. Stephen, Oratory of, 381, plate 9.32a—b Sta. Maria Maggiore (Rome), 511n77 Sta. Maria de Tahull, 511n77

Stavelot Abbey, 431

Stone crosses, 32, 489n48 of Church of the Annunciation, 433

Sts. Mary and Martha, Church of (Bethany), 131

Subeiba (Qalat al-Subayba, castle), 12,

108-9, 519n39 construction of, 515n113 fortifications of, 561n69

plans of, plate 5.21a—b Synagoge, iconography of, 388, 580n210 Syrian orthodox Christians, 3 artists among, 404, 475, 477, 585n303 as art patrons, 4

in decoration of Crac des Chevaliers,

404 at Holy Sepulcher, 406, 581n239,

fortification of Tortosa, 302

fortified holdings of, 15, 123, 130 founding of, 67, 78, 251, 507n10 at Gaza, 287, 302, 563n100

Gormond’s patronage of, 113 influence of, 393, 582n260, 603n7 military activities of, 518n22 protection of pilgrims, 393 and Saladin, 413 at Templum Salomonis, 67, 173 in Work on Geography, 112 Templar workshop, 397, 441-56, 565n32, 595n172, 595n174-75, 603n7 acanthus sculpture of, 442, 450, 451, 452, 468 classicism of, 450, 455, 456 columns of, 601n286, 601n289 establishment of, 452 lions from, 565n132, plate 10.13v and Nazareth capitals, 437

originality of, 480 Provengal influence on, 597n202 Romanesque influence at, 455

sculptors of, 455, 476 spolia of, 441, 451, 595n170, 596n186-87

and tomb of Baldwin V, 601n295 Western sources of, 455

See also Templum Salomonis (Aqsa Mosque).

Templum Domini (Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem), 8, 249-53, plate 8A.3a-c

altar of St. Nicholas, 252

Augustinian canons of, 173, 251, 266,

586n319

importance in Crusader States, 462-63, 585n313 and redecoration of Church of the

Nativity, 378, 404 settlement at Jerusalem, 73 and text of ecumenical council mosaics, 361 Theodorich on, 405 Syria-Palestine Byzantine architecture of, 6 Crusader art of, 2 Crusader castles in, 8

285, 551n21 Crusader decoration of, 251, 253, 551n21, 551n24 Daniel's account of, 65 decoration of, 522n83-84 dedication of, 136, 249, 251, 273, 550n16-18

depiction on seals, 495n6, 559n23 dome of, 213 in fall of Jerusalem, 473 golden cross of, 251 Ibrahim mihrab of, 452

earthquake (1114), 500n94

importance to pilgrims, 253

earthquake (1170), 390-91

inscriptions of, 251-53

French-British mandates of, 10, 12

Napoleonic campaigns in, 5

Tarsus, capture of, 25 Tel Danith, battle of, 78 Templars and Amaury’s Egyptian campaign, 581n224 architecture of, 9-10 at Baghras, 300, 519n33, 561n71 under Baldwin II, 78-79 decoration of castles, 404 defense of Latin Kingdom, 302 dispute with Amaury, 393

657

ironwork of, 136-37, 251, 285, plate 6.7a-C

Melisende’s patronage of, 136, 173, 550n19 mosaics, 240, 241, 251, 253, 551n21

Ommayad, 360, 361 pilgrims’ narratives of, 285, 523n

Qubbat al-Mi' raj (baptistery), 253-61, 479, 553n52, 592n118, plate 8A.5a capitals of, 254, 260-61, 266, 272-73, 276, 553n53-54, 554n57, plate 8A.5c—ii

Templum Domini (continued)

Crusader sculpture of, 261, 553n41 date of, 273

lantern of, 261, 553n41, plate 8A.5b Moslem tradition concerning, 553n40 plan of, 254 renovation by Moslems, 266 Romanesque elements of, 272 shape of, 553n43 spolia of, 253, 596n187 redecoration of, 251 restoration of, 523n84 Romanesque aspects of, 136 spolia of, 259 statuary of, 44 Tancred’s capture of, 32, 35, 55 Templars at, 78 Well of Souls, 442 portal of, 451 spolia of, plate 10.15a—d voussoirs of, 596n180 workshop of, 266 Templum Salomonis (Aqsa Mosque), 8 acanthus sculpture of, 442, 450, 451 arches of, 213 Daniel’s account of, 65 Dikka (prayer platform), 442, 450-52, 596n181, plate 10.13a—w animal sculpture of, 451, 596n185 balustrades of, 451, 452, plate 10.13c-i, plate 10.13u—v capitals of, 452, 455, plate 10.13)-s, plate 10.13w columns of, 452 foliate sculpture of, 450, 596n183 restoration of, 596n182 disrepair of, 105, 551n21 facade, plate 8A.8a—b in fall of Jerusalem, 473

Omariyya mihrab, 259, 266, plate 8A.8c capitals of, 272, 442 pilgrims’ narratives of, 285 porch of, 442, 596n177 Saladin mihrab, 452, 473 capitals, plate 10.14c-d spolia of, 442 Tancred’s capture of, 32 Templars at, 67, 78, 173

use as palace, 495n6 Zachariye mihrab, 596n184 See also Haram al-Sharif (Jerusalem);

Templar workshop. Temptation of Christ (Plaimpied), 437, 439, 440 Theoctistus Monastery, 577n148 paintings of, 463, 598n251 Thessalonika, 24 Church of St. Georgios, 361 Tiberias, 36, 472, 504n160 Tomb of Lazarus, 65, 521n67-68 decorations of, 131, 521n69

Tomb of the Virgin, 113, 491n20, 516n135, 566n153—54, plate 8B.27a-d baldacchinos of, 434

on Cambrai map, 566n150 Daniel’s account of, 65, 566n150

John of Wiirzburg’s account of, 566n154

Templar sculpture in, 452 Theodorich’s account of, 566n154 Tombs Byzantine, 600n279, 601n285 medieval, 38, 44, 467, 493n39,

493n43, 493n48-49 Norman, 39, 493n48

See also Holy Sepulcher, Church of (Jerusalem), tombs; Sarcoph-

agi.

Tortosa, 8, 302-6, 558n12 capture by Raymond, 49 recovery from Nureddin, 288, 302 See also Notre Dame, Cathedral of

(Tortosa).

Toulouse

architecture of, 225, 538n66 coinage of, 171, 479, 531n182 pilgrimage church of, 228 Tower keeps, 499n68 Tower of David (Jerusalem), 558n8, plate 8B.1

on coins, 89, 289-90, 297, 333, 334, 558n20, 559n20 depiction on seals, 495n6 on maps, 281 Melisende at, 288 William of Tyre’s description of, 37, 492n31 Towers, fortified, 122, 518n18, 520n53

Transfiguration mosaics of, 109, 358, 363, 364

in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 68h

in Twelve Feasts icon, 408

Travel literature. See Pilgrims’ narratives.

Treaty of Devol, 519n25 Tree of Jesse, mosaics of, 360, 363, 364, 378, 575n130

Tripoli capture by Crusaders, 55 castles of, 8 churches of, 11

formation of, 49 fortifications of, 558n12

paintings of, 383 Saladin’s raids on, 413 Turkish invasion of, 121 True Cross

on ampullae, 296, 297 on coinage, 51, 530n170 cult in Jerusalem, 99, 170, 294, 361

on seals, 294, 560n38

True Cross, Orthodox Monastery of (Jerusalem), 66, 462

True Cross relics, 34-35

of Amaury, 391, 581n234 in Amaury’s Egyptian campaign, 391 at Antioch, 507n8 Baldwin II’s use of, 78

as battle ensign, 49, 83, 97, 487n28, 490n9, 519n26 in battle of Daron, 391 in battle of Ramla, 49, 496n22 in battle of Tel Danith, 78, 507n9

in battles against Saladin, 460, 472 in battle with Zengi, 124 and defeat in battle, 69, 505n177 Gormond’s interest in, 113

in Hauran campaign, 285 in Holy Sepulcher, 240, 391-92 importance to Crusaders, 29, 43, 83,

240, 489n35, 499n75

jurisdiction over, 82-83 loss to Saladin, 472

in reign of Amaury, 391-93 reliquaries, 16, 35, 43, 49, 83, 97, 100,

480, 490n8, 513n96

of Abbey of Carboeiro, 293, 392, 581n240, plate 8B.7a—b

of Angers, 290-91, 559n28 of Augsburg, 513n87

of Beaulieu-sur—Dordogne, 62 of Clairvaux, 581n234 of Cleveland, 561n58 decoration of, 531n183 double-barred, 167, 512n85-86 of Hildesheim, 392, 582n245 of Jerusalem, 167-69 of Limburg an der Lahn, 497n32, 512n84-85, 560n43 at Louvre, Paris, plate 8B.6a—b

De Vogiié’s descriptions of, 8

emir of, 29, 489n36 First Crusade at, 29 mint of, 171 monuments of, 2

Tripoli, County of, 54-56 artistic activity in, 16, 466, 476,

599n262 coinage of, 89, 171, 479, 559n20,

559n22, plate 4.14

deniers, 559n22

in earthquake of 1170, 391, 398, 588n36

658

of Naples, 513n96 of reign of Baldwin III, 290-94 of Scheyern, 290, 291, plate 8B.3a—b

shape of, 98 of St. Foi, plate 8B.5 removal to Europe, 68, 83, 290, 391, 509n34 in Second Crusade, 285

in siege of Ascalon, 288 in siege of Montferrand, 166-67 in siege of Tyre, 85 See also Barletta True Cross reliquary; Denkendorf True Cross reli-

quary; Kaisheim Cross reliquary.

Turbesse!

(Tell Bashir), 125, 519n33

Turks

campaigns against Fulk, 121 co! of holy sites, 5 in Crusade of 1101, 49 Danishmend, 125

Ottoman, 67

Seljuk, 56, 69, 299, 412 See also Moslems.

Tuscany, influence on Crusader art, 226, 540n77

Twelve Feasts icon (Mt. Sinai), 406-8, plate 9.38

date of, 586n332, 587n339 Tympana

of Belvoir castle, 397, 583n280 of Holy Sepulcher, 225, 227, 240, 541n93

of St. Mary Latin, 583n280 Tyre, plate 5.2a

capture of, 91 cathedral of, 509n43 Christian refugees to, 473 depiction on seals, 511n65 in earthquake of 1170, 391 ecclesiastical architecture of, 110 fortifications of, 85 mint of, 90, 289, 510n58

silk industry at, 525n110 Venetians’ siege of, 84-86

Umayyads. See Ommayads. Valence, coinage of, 90, 170, 497n26

Vatican gospelbook artist of, 345, 346, 347

Byzantine style of, 341, 346, 346-47 canon table arches in, plate 9.4b contents of, 569n31

date of, 347, 570n55

evangelist portraits in, 341, 345, 346, 366, 569n40, plate 9.4a, plate 9.4cf initials, 569n37 miniatures of, 337-38, 34546 patronage of, 346, 347 scribe of, 341

See also Paris gospelbook. Venetians, 90, 477 defeat of Fatimids, 84 in First Crusade, 37 in redecoration of Church of the

Nativity, 370, 378 siege of Tyre, 84-86 Vestments, liturgical: decoration of, 157 Vienne, sculpture of, 437, 438, 439, 593n143 Vinca, Church of (Pyrénées Orientales),

323 Vine decorations, 529n156, 529n160 Vine-scroll decorations, 168, 169, 227, 516n144, 541n91

on ampullae, 295 of Church of the Nativity mosaics, 364

of cross reliquaries, 290 of Holy Sepulcher, 225, 226, 227, 455, 516n144, 539n75, plate 7.9a-b, plate 7.9k-r Virgin and Child Deésis Chapel paintings of, 165, plate 6.15c iconography of, 511n77 icons of, 497n45 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, 155, 165, 283, plate 6.9n

Tortosa icon of, 302 See alsoNativity, Church of (Bethlehem), column paintings; Viirgin

Mary (in Personal Name Index).

659

Virgin and Child Hodegetria (Crac des Chevaliers), 403, 584n300,

plate 9.37j-k Visions

in First Crusade, 25, 26, 27-28, 32, 33, 489n54 soldier saints in, 488n31 William of Tyre on, 557n108 Visitation

in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.8b sculpture fragments of, plate 8A.12b Vladimir Madonna, 95, 511n70

Well of Souls. See Templum Domini Work on Geography, 112-13, 531n194, 535n28 Jerusalem in, 173, 286

Workshops of Bethlehem, 318, 357, 363, 365, 371 of Church of the Annunciation, 417,

437, 439, 452 of Church of the Nativity, 365, 371, 378 of Crusader artists, 11, 273 diversity of, 538n63 of Haram al-Sharif, 273, 437 of Holy Sepulcher, 203, 204, 212, 228, 273, 534n24, 538n63 of Hospital of St. John, 278, 442,

556n94, 595n174 of Jerusalem, 440

relationships among, 437 See also Templar workshop. Yalu, 123

Yavne (Ibelin), 130, 520n47, 520n49-50

Zodiac imagery, 156, 276, 555n82 at St. Mary Latin, 418

Personal Proper Names Index

Abdias (prophet), 434, 563n104 Abel, F.-M. See Vincent, Hughes. Abiathar (priest), 434, 592n124 Abraham (patriarch) in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 357, 362, 364 in Holy Sepulcher painting, 546n170 in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 388, 580n207 in Templum Domini commemoration, 552n34 Absalom, bishop of Ascalon, 299 Achard d’Arrouaise, 251 Adelaide of Sicily, wife of Baldwin I, 68-69, 505n175, 538n59 Adhemar, bishop of Le Puy banner of, 23, 486n7, 487n28 death of, 28 and Holy Lance, 27-28, 487n27-28 Agnes, St.: in Psalter of Queen Melisende. plate 6.9v

Agnes of Courtenay, 331 Aimery, abbot of Anchin, 492n32 Aimery, patriarch of Antioch, 125, 175, 300, 562n80 elevation of, 173 imprisonment of, 300, 561n71 regency of, 301 seals of, 172 Alberic, cardinal of Ostia, 173, 249 Albert of Aachen, 24, 35, 489n43 on Adelaide, 69 on tomb of Godefroy de Bouillon, 37-38 Albert of Aix. See Albert of Aachen. Alexander, St.: reliquary of, 502n110 Alexander (papal legate), 490n3 Alexander IIT, Pope, 414 Alexius, Emperor of Constantinople, 25

coinage of, 42 and Count Raymond, 487n25 Crusaders’ fealty to, 28 death of, 76 treaty with Bohemond, 519n25 Alice, wife of Bohemond II, 114, 519n24 political ambition of, 121, 123, 124 Alliata, E., 417 on Nazareth capitals, 431, 592n116 Alphonse-Jourdain of Toulouse, 171 Amalrich, bishop of Sidon, 392 Amaury, king of Latin Jerusalem, 63 accession to throne, 328 and Byzantine culture, 296, 392, 480, 570n55, 600n285 Byzantine policy of, 331, 333, 334, 336-37, 391, 571n57 coinage, 334-37, 568n20 deniers, 334, 414, 568n19, 568n22 coronation of, 331 death of, 409, 410 dispute with Templars, 393 Egyptian campaigns of, 333-34, 390-91, 581n225 embassy to Constantinople, 324, 334,

391, 568n13, 570n57, 581n231-32 fiefdoms of, 299 fiscal policy of, 337, 568n28

and Manuel I Comnenus, 301, 351, 390,

391 marriage to Agnes of Courtenay, 331

tomb of, 586n345 and True Cross relics, 391, 581n234 vassals of, 331

Amaury of Nesle, patriarch of Jerusalem, 324, 544n120, 544n123 and marriage of King Amaury, 331

Amico, Bernardino, 79, 90, 493n38—40, 507n17, 568n24, plate 9.2

al-Amir, Caliph: coinage of, 73, 169, 174, plate 5.11 Andrew, St.: visions of, 28, 29, 487n25 Andronicus Comnenus, 459-60. 567n5 Anna Comnena, 489n54

Anne Nikopoia, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 96, plate 8A.16 Anseau, cantor of Church of the # sly Sep-

ulcher, 83, 98, 50924 Anselm, bishop of Havelberg, 8741 | Anthony, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 366, 462, 5770147, plate 9.26c Arda, wife of Baldwin I, 64, 68. °)3n134, 505n175 Arnold of Liibeck, 582n246 Arnulf of Chocques, patriarch of Jerusalem, 29, 490n3 and Baldwin I, 42 death of, 60, 76 and Holy Lance, 28 installation of canons, 500n94

347, 406, 567n5, 570n55

as papal legate, 34 as patriarch, 34, 35, 37, 490n6—7 and rebuilding of Holy Sepulcher, 57,

333, 350, 392, 570n57, 571n64

202, 203, 503n123, 517n3, 533n18, 535n2, 541n94 : rebuilding of Monastery of Our Lady in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, 113

marriage to Princess Maria, 333, 334,

and Melisende, 287 patronage of literature, 334 redecoration of Church of the Nativity, seals of, 297, 392, 495n6

660

and relic of True Cross, 36, 43

Arnt

turano, 29

ar’R

var al Marri, 602n334

As¢ al-A Aug

ishop of Ascalon, 57 Khalil, Sultan, 16

5t.: feasts of, 528n128

Azo

f the Holy Sepulcher, 104, 4n101

B

S., 534n25

Bag r

3., 324, 573n81 h of the Annunciation,

5990n 73-75, 590n79, 591n106 thquake of 1170, 588n36 excavation of Church of the Annunciation, 415, 430, 433

zareth capitals, 431 5-253 phew of Il-Ghazi, 83 [, king of Latin Jerusalem, 23, 43 at Apamea, 69

at battle of Ramla, 49 and ceremony of Holy Fire, 64 chronology of reign, 495n1 and Church of the Nativity, 66 coinage of, 41-42, 73, 527n122 conquest of Edessa, 26—27 consolidation of power, 56 control of port cities, 68 coronation of, 46, 48 Crusader art under, 45 and Daimbert of Pisa, 43, 46, 48, 56, 499n75 death of, 67, 507n1 lefeat by Mawdud, 69, 505n177 epitaph of, 74-75, 506n194 and Genoese inscription, 63 gifts to Notre Dame of Jehoshaphat, 504n144 mosexuality of, 505n175 rarriage to Adelaide, 68-69, 538n59 lace of, 65 eption of King Sigurd, 68 route to Holy Land, 25 yal

rregalia of, 46

ls of, 46, 559n23 uring of frontiers, 68 ngthening of Jerusalem, 73 of, 48

nb of, 74-75, 506n193, plate 4.19 id True Cross relic, 49 es of, 505n175-76 dwin II, king of Latin Jerusalem, 23 Aleppo, 87 \pamea, 69 ptivity of, 83-84, 87, 113 oinage of, 88, 89, plate 5.45 coronation of, 79, 507n1, 517n1 lection of, 76

and Pons of Tripoli, 83 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, 151, 524n100 regency of Antioch, 78, 82, 82 renovations to "hurch of the Holy Sepulcher,7

route to Near East, 25 as ruler of Edessa, 49, 55

Baldwin I of Edessa. See Baldwin I, king of Latin Jerusalem Baldwin II of Edessa. See Baldwin II, king

captivity of, 50 civil war with Tancred, 51, 54

coinage of, 51 seals of, 90 strengthening of Jerusalem, 78 succession of, 122 tomb of, 114-15, 186, 493n49.

594n164

516n143-44, plate 5.25 and True Cross, 78

at Tyre, 30 Baldwin II, king of Latin Jerusalem, 114, 122, 570n57 and Byzantine art, 324, 480, 600n285

campaign against Nureddin, 290, 299-300

coinage of, 170, 297, 558n19,

conquest of Ascalon, 176,285, 287, 288, 558n14

consolidation of power, 288 coronation of, 175, 179

at dedication of Holy Sepulcher, 229 defense of Antioch, 285, 300-302, 543n107 and Manuel I Comnenus, 301, 562n77

marriage to Theodora, 296, 301, 324, 326, 333, oe 53

533n18, 542n

and Praemonstratensians, 247

regency of Tripoli, 285 seals of, tomb of, and True war with

Bartholomew, St. column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 366, 370-71, 578n154, plate 9.28c in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh,

388 Basil, archbishop of Ochrid, 575n Basil (illuminator), 155, 162, 23 and Basil the mosaicist,

559n21—22 deniers, 527n122, 558n19, 559n22

patronage, 228 of Holy Sepulcher 98

of Latin Jerusalem

Baldwin of Le Bourg. See Baldwin II, king of Latin Jerusalem Balian the Elder, 130 Barasch, M., 397, 583n27 0. 583n278.

559n20, 559n23 328, 567n162, 567n164

352

Basil II, Menologion of, 578n160 Basilius, bishop of Edessa, 408

Basilius (mosaicist), 351-52, 573n83 angels of, 354, 363, 370, 379, 578n154 578n172, plate 9.22b identity of, 352-53 inscriptions concerning, 352, 572n7 nationality of, 357 as Syrian Orthodox, 354 training of, 572n78

Baybars, Sultan, 16, 66, 415, 435 Begon, abbot, 513n86 Belard of Ascoli, 285, 286, 557n111 Belting, Honey 485n52 Bendall, S.,5 Benveniste, Ms 70, 515n113 on Crusader churches, 520n47 on Ibelin, 130 Bernard, priorofChurch of theNativity, $04n153

Bernard of Clairvaux, 246, 247, 549n5, 568n14

Cross, 288, 290 Melisende, 287-88

Baldwin IV, king of Latin Jerusalem, 331,

on ecclesiastical art, 334, 565n131 Bernard of Valence, patriarch of Antioch,

587n4

2 2 49

appeal to Europe, 412 campaigns against Saladin, 460

coing age of, 50

death of, 123-24

coronation of, 410 death of, 459, 461, 466

interest in religious images, 494n50 leprosy of, 410, 414, 456, 597n217 seals of, 414 tomb of, 461, 595n175

Baldwin V, king of Latin Jerusalem birth of, 410

5.10 Biddle, Martin, 535n26 Boase, Thomas

Ross,

12-15,

474,

on Angelica-Fitzwilliam sacramentary, 162, 514n100-101

600n273-76, 600n285 79.

600n284

date, 597n209, 601n292

Baldwin of Boulogne. See Baldwin I, king

661

Sherrer

484n40

600n27 1-72, plate 10.21 bird imagery of, 467, 468,

of Latin Jerusalem

Bertaux, E., 11, 498n51 Berthold (pilgrim), 97 Bertrand of Blancfort, Grand Master of the Templars, 300 Bertrand of St. Gilles: coinage of, 55, 89,

171, 499n74, plate 4.14, plate

coronation of, 459 regents of, 467, 597n 217 tomb of, 39, 467-69, 595n175 §98n234-35, 599n270,

Byzantine aspects of, 600n2

regency of Antioch, 50, 78, 84, 497n26 Bernardus (goldsmith), 99, 513n88

on Belvoir castle, 397 590n66 on Chatsworth torso,430. 4 on Church of St. Anne, 522n71 on Church of the Annunciation, 588n38

on figural sculpture, 565n134

Boase, Thomas Sherrer Ross (continued) on Nazareth capitals, 440 Burchard of Strasbourg, 585n305 Conrad III, king of Germany, 186 study of illumination, 484n41, 484n47 Burgoyne, M., 266, 553n43 Conrad of Montferrat, 530n170 and T. E. Lawrence, 484n46 Bursuk, atabeg of Mosul, 69, 87 Constance, daughter of Bohemond Ii. 114, on Templum Domini, 137 Buschhausen, H., 508n21, 539n76, 550n19, 121, 288, 519n24 on tomb of Baldwin V, 601n295 551n21, 554n57 marriage to Raymond of Poitiers. 124, Boeren, P. C., 533n15 on Templar workshop, 442, 455, 456, 171, 531n183 Bohemond I of Antioch, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 595n170, 596n179 marriage to Renaud de Chatillon, 309 army of, 485n2 on tomb of Baldwin V, 600n279 regency of Antioch, 301 coinage of, plate 4.6 Constantine, St.: iconography of, 51, 23] and Daimbert, 48 Cadi Burhan, summer pulpit of, 565n134, Constantine IX Monomachus, 39 homage to patriarch of Jerusalem, 596n187, plate 8B.22 restorations to Holy Sepulcher, 48, 79. 491n28 Cahen, Claude, 519n33 155, 496n12, 501n95, 508n18. imprisonment of, 42 Cahier, C., 524n95 534n23, 544n126 pilgrimage to holy sites, 36-37 Calixtus II, Pope, 76, 97 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, 512ng5 ransom of, 49 Canute, St. See Knute, St. Corbo, V. C., 534n26 return to Europe, 50 Caskey, Jill, 506n186 Cornelius, of Caesarea, 511n65 as ruler of Antioch, 36, 37 Cataldus, St.: column painting of (Church Cosmas, St. tomb of, 53, 498n51, plate 4.9 of the Nativity), 283, plate 8A.14 column painting of (Church of the treaty with Alexius, 519n25 Cecilia, countess of Tripoli, 121 Nativity), 366, 577n143, Bohemond II of Antioch, 87 Celestin II, Pope, 97 577n14 5, plate 9.28b coinage of, 88 Chariton, St.: relics of, 585n316 paintings of, 163 death of, 114 Choricius, 372, 578n158 Coiiasnon, C., 499n83, 500n94, 536n33 Bohemond III of Antioch, 301, 333, 466, Christ, 30, 489n43 Coupel, Pierre, 12, 402, 403 562n80 on ampullae, 295-96 Cutler, Anthony, 353, 354, 527124, truce with Saladin, 472 ancestors, in Church of the Nativity 572n65 Visit to Jerusalem, 412 mosaics, 360, 364, 378, 432, Bohemond of Taranto. See Bohemond I of 576n130, plate 9.23a—d Dagobert, King: tomb of, 493n48 Antioch in Angelica-Fitzwilliam sacramentary, Daimber t of Pisa, patriarch of Jerusalem Bonfils, 276 104 arrival in Jerusalem, 36 Boniface of Ragusa, 507n17 baptismal site of, 35, 36, 65, 393, artistic interests of, 43 Bordeaux, Henry, 483n28 491n14, 585n308 and Baldwin I, 43, 46, 48, 56, 499n75 Borg, Alan, 500n94, 501n97, 504n142 Berlin icon of, 364, 576n139, 586n332 deposition of, 56 on Holy Sepulcher, 213, 226, 455, in Church of the Annunciation sculpelection as patriarch, 37, 491n27-28 517n3, 533n16, 535n27, 53749, ture, 431, 434, plate 10.5d, plate and Hospital of St. John, 67 537n52, 539n76, 543n108 10.5f in siege of Haifa, 42 on Nazareth capitals, 438, 594n150 in Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 62, Damasus, Pope, 539n71 on seals, 230 239, 540n78, 540n80-84 Damian, St.: column painting of (Church of on Templar workshop, 455 Anastasis mosaic of, 230-31, the Nativity), 462, 577n143, on Toulouse, 225, 538n66 232-33, 242, 543n110-11, 577n145, plate 10.17f on workshops, 437, 593n145 544n121 Daniel, abbot of Chernigov, 40, 49in16 Botild, queen of the Danes, 516n134 mosaics, 225, 235, 236, 238, plate account of Church of St. Mary (Sion), tomb of, 566n152 7.10b 65, 469, 503n140, 588n31, Brasius, St.: column painting of (Church of sculpture, 226, plate 7.9d, plate 601n296, 601n301 the Nativity), 96-97, 370, 462, 7.9f account of Church of the Holy Sepul511n72, 598n239 on coins, 41-42 cher, 60-62, 64-66, 82, 496n12, date of, 163 icons of, 586n332 502n107 Breydenbach, Bernhard von, 79, 507n17 location of appearance to Mary Magdaon Byzantine monasteries, 504n150 Brodahl, Jean, 527n124 lene, 214 on centrality of Jerusalem, 213, 214 Buchthal, Hugo, 1, 13, 484n41, 546n164 metalwork figures of, 502n111 on Church of the Nativity, 48, 361, on Angelica-Fitzwilliam sacramentary, in Paris gospelbook, 345 575n118 100, 101, 104, 162 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate on Crusader art, 503n124 on Armenian manuscripts, 341 6.8e—u on Emmaus, 579n185 on Basilius, 572n78 repose of, 318 on icons, 62, 502n113 on Gospelbook of St. John, 282-83 on Sancta Sanctorum reliquary, 53 on mosaics, 65, 231, 234, 235, 361, on Holy Sepulcher gospelbooks, 346, on tomb of Baldwin V, 467, 468 544n126 569n32, 569n35, 569n37 See also events in the life of Christ return to Russia, 67 on Holy Sepulcher scriptorium, 345, (General Index) on Tomb of the Virgin, 566n150 347 Ciampini, G. G., on Church of the Nativity translations of, 501n101 on manuscript illumination, 14, 236, mosaics, 357, 573n89 visit to Hebron, 82 338 Clapham, A. W., 534n22, 535n31 David, King on Psalter of Queen Melisende, 155, Cleave, Richard, 484n34 in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 357, 156, 524n100, 525n105 Clermont-Ganneau, C., 483n18, 501n94, 362, 364 on San Danieli Bible, 463 520n47, 536n32 Bulst-Thiele, M. L., 233, 236, 242, 532n5. in Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 235 Holy on reliquaries, 560n55-—56, 561n62 iconography of, 158, 527n124 545n144, 546n152 Conant, K. J.. 535n30 in Vienne sculpture, 439

662

De Clercq. Louis, 7, 483n34

De Hody, A. G. C. P,, 492n36, 493n39

De Lasteyrie. Robert, 11 on Naza reth capitals, 440 , 483n29 Delauney Demetrius

: in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 389

Demus, ©.. §74n105

De Piellat, Comte A.: watercolors of, 383, 88, 579n193, 580n197, Aw 580n207, plate 9.35a—g De Sandoli, S., 243, 531n206, 544n126, 548n188 on coinage, 558n19 on Templum Domini, 551n21

Deschamps, Paul, 11-12, 483n30, 594n164 on Belfort, 126 on Chastel de Rugia, 517n5 and Crac des Chevaliers, 398, 402,

584n284, 584n287, 584n290, 584n293 on Hospital of St. John fragments, 556n91 on St. John Gibelet, 506n186 on Templar workshop, 455 on Turbessel, 519n33 use of photographs, 483n40 Desiderius of Monte Cassino, 104 De Vogiié, Charles-Jean-Melchior, 5-8, 474,

479, 482n1, 482n10, 571n58 and Abu Ghosh, 382, 579n188 on arches, 537n46 on Cathedral of St. John (Sebaste),

309 on Church of St. Anne, 522n71 concept of Crusader art, 7 on Fretellus, 533n13 on Holy Sepulcher, 202, 229, 540n82, 544n126, 548n186 on Hospital of St. John, 276, 554n71 methodology of, 6, 8 as pioneer, 14 on Qubbat al-Mi'raj, 253 on royal tombs, 516n143 sources of, 13

on St. Mary Latin, 276 use of John of Wiirzburg, 551n21

Diehl. Charles, 9, 580n197, 580n215 Diez Fernandez, Florentino, 535n26 Dionysius the Areopagite, 388

Dodd, E., 580n195 Dodwell, C. R., 569n40

Edbury, P., 46 Edgar Aetheling, 27 Eglypus, King: in Church of the Annuncia-

tion sculpture, 434, 439, 440, plate 10.5k

Ekkehard, abbot of Aura, 39, 69, 491n16 Elbern, V., 576n139 Elia (mason), 417

Elijah

column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 163-65, 283, 364, 528n145, 546n168, plate 6.13a-c

in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 238-39

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor,

iconography of, 97, 546n168

Fretellus. See Rorgo Fretellus Frith, Francis, 7 Fulcher of Angouléme, patriarch of

tomb of, 563n104 in Work on Geography, 113 Enlart, Camille, 10-11, 12, 476 on Abu Ghosh, 579n189

on Belmont Abbey, 323 Boase on, 14 on Cathedral of St. John (Sebaste), 311 on Church of St. Anne, 522n71 on Church of St. John (Gaza), 563n103 on Church of the Annunciation, 588n37

on Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 60, 225, 533n16, 538n59, 543n108 on Coenaculum, 601n303

on Hospital of St. John, 276, 554n71 and manuscript illumination, 483n29 on Mt. Tabor, 109, 594n147 nationalism of, 483n28

on Nazareth capitals, 431, 440, 593n142, 593n144 sources of, 483n25 on St. Mary Latin, 276 on Templar workshop, 455

on Templum Domini, 522n84 translations of, 481n4 Ephraim (mosaicist), 347, 364, 573n83

identity of, 353-54, 572n67, 573n84 inscription on, 350 nationality of, 357 as overseer, 378, 571n64, 572n65

Epstein, A. Wharton, 580n194 Erich, king of Sweden, 495n6 Eschiva of Bures, Princess of Galilee, 410

Eskill Sveinsson (pilgrim), 317, 564n121 Eudes de Saint-Amand, 331

Eugenius, Pope, 306 Eugesippus, 187, 533n14-16 “De locis sanctis,” 202, 517n3

identity of, 533n13 See also Rorgo Fretellus. Eustace III, count of Boulogne, 23 at battle of Ascalon, 35 and succession to crown of Jerusalem, 76, 507n1 Eustace of Garnier, 84, 112 Eustathius of Thessalonika, 567n10 Euthymius, St.: column painting of

(Church of the Nativity), 366. 577147, plate 9.26d

Evremar of Chocques, patriarch of Jerusalem, 56, 76 at feast of Holy Cross, 78 seals of, 90, 511n65

Fabre, A., 455 Favreau-Lilie, M., 456 Fergusson, Peter, 471, 500n86 Fetellus. See Eugesippus: Rorgo Fretellus

Fink, H., 490n12 Focillon, H., 542n95 Foulques de Cleers, 290

Franco of Liége, 173, 531n200 Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, 510n59

663

587n14

Jerusalem as archbishop of Tyre, 175, 511n65 dispute with Hospitalers, 274, 306 elevation to patriarch, 179, 533n20 and marriage of Amaury, 331 patronage of Holy Sepulcher, 179, 229 and Queen Melisende, 202 seals of, 172, 230, 231, 296, 544n120, 544n123 Fulcher of Chartres, 24, 25

on ancient ruins, 491n25 on Antioch, 26, 28, 82-83 on Baldwin I, 24, 25 on Baldwin II, 78 on battle of Ascalon, 35 composition of history, 509n45

on Crusaders’ return to Europe, 490n12 as eyewitness, 486n11 on idolatry, 44

on on on on

Jerash, 83 liturgical processions, 509n38 omens, 26 orientalization of Franks, 86-87, 105, 119, 169, 476 on Scandinavian Crusaders, 68 on siege of Jerusalem, 32 on siege of Tyre, 84 on Templum Domini, 65 on Templum Salomonis, 551n21 translations of, 485n2 on True Cross, 35, 49, 78, 490n8 Fulk V, count of Poitou. See Fulk, king of Latin Jerusalem

Fulk, king of Latin Jerusalem, 114, 505n166 alliance with Moslems, 126, 174

coinage of, 530n169-70, plate 6.18 coronation of, 119, 165, 179, 517n1 death of, 151, 173-74 fortifications of, 123, 126-30, 173

iconography of, 154, 158, 524n95 and John II Comnenus, 125 as overlord of Antioch, 121, 124 and Psalter of Queen Melisende, 154, 155, 156, 158, 524n100 rebellion against, 122, 518n12 reconciliation with Melisende, 130, 154

and role of Templars. 123 at siege of Montferrand, 166-67, 529n148 strategy against Ascalon, 518n22 surrender to Zengi, 124 tomb of, 174, 186 and True Cross relic, 167 vassals of, 121-22

Fusca, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 366, 369-70, 578n163, plate 9.27a graffiti on, 602n334

i | i}

———————————

Gabriel, Angel: in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 357 ~ Garrison, E. B., 463, 465, 466 Gaston of Béarn, 23 at siege of Jerusalem, 30 Gauthier, M.-M., 560n32 Gauthier I of Caesarea, 172 Gelasius II, Pope, 76 Geoffrey Fulcher (Templar), 334 Geoffrey of Marash, 84 Geoffrey Plantagenet, 154 George, St. on coins, 88, 172 column painting of, 317, plate 8B.19a—b in Crac des Chevaliers frescoes, 403, 585n303, plate 9.37m cross of, 489n46 Crusaders’ visions of, 28, 32, 33, 488n35, 489n46 fresco paintings of, 585n301 horse of, plate 9.37m in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 389 iconography of, 389, 403, 485n3, 497n45, 510n53, 511n65 tomb of, 307, 389, 403, 478 Gerard, abbot of Schaffhausen, 490n9 Gerard of Ridefort, Grand Master of the Templars, 469, 602n322 and Raymond III, 472

Gerard of Roussillon, 23 Gerard the Hospitaler, 67 epitaph of, 79, 507n13 Germer-Durand, P., 455 Gibelin of Arles, patriarch of Jerusalem, 56-57, 500n87 Gilbert d’ Assailly, 561n60 Gilbert of Tournai, 32 Giotto, 539n71 Girard d’ Orleans, 532n3 Giselbertus (artist), 351, 572n68

Godefroid de Huy, 392 Godefroy de Bouillon, 405 as Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri, 34, 36 > 37, 490n5 army of, 23 at Bethlehem, 30 death of, 37, 42 departure from Antioch, 28 epitaph of, 38, 492n36 family of, 485n6 gift to Hospitalers, 67 interest in religious images, 40, 42, 493n50 march to Jerusalem, 29 route to Holy Land, 24 seals of, 40 at siege of Jerusalem, 30, 32 sword of, 494n52, 494n65, plate 3.2 tomb of, 37-40, 113, 501n105, plate 3.la canopy of, 38, 493n40 damage by Turks, 492n36 date of, 39, 493n49

early illustrations of, 38 European character of, 40, 44

location of, 492n37, 494n38 material of, 493n39, 567n162

pilgrims’ accounts of, 39 Godfrey de’ Prefetti, 392, 582n254 Godfrey de St. Omer, 78 Gonsales, Antonius, 492n37 Gordus, A. A., 171 Gormond, patriarch of Jerusalem, 57, 76 in Angelica-Fitzwilliam sacramentary, 162 and archbishopric of Nazareth, 414 in Council of Nablus, 113 death of, 103, 104, 113 and doge of Venice, 84 gift of relics, 97 seals of, 90 and Templars, 78 in Work on Geography, 113 Grabar, André, 361, 574n111 Grabois, A., 108 Graham, Henry B., 527n124 Gregory III, Armenian Catholicus, 247 Grosdidier de Matons, D., 526n120 Guérin, Victor, 483n25, 520n47 Gurlitt, C., 502n112, 548n180 Guy, king of Latin Jerusalem campaign against Saladin, 460, 472, 601n293 coronation of, 469, 471 marriage to Sibylla, 412 regency of, 459, 597n217 Guy de Lusignan. See Guy, king of Latin Jerusalem

Hadrian, Pope, 510n59 al-Hakim, Caliph, 155, 496n12 destruction of Holy Sepulcher, 545n144 Hall, M. Panadero, 555n82

Hamilton, B., 504n144, 521n57, 533n19, 598n247 on Amaury, 581n234 on fall of Jerusalem, 588n28 on pilgrimages, 564n128

on St. Mary Latin, 555n86

on Templum Domini, 551n21 Hamilton, R. W. on Church of the Nativity mosaics, 362,

573n80, 574n115

on Templum Salomonis, 596n177 Harrison, Martin, 600n285 Harvey, W., 573n89 Hedwig of Schaffhausen, 98, 512n86 Helena, St. discovery of True Cross, 187 in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 239 iconography of, 51, 231 Hennessy, J. B., 579n182 Henry I, king of England, 412, 471,

587n10

Henry the Lion, 240, 581n244 acquisition of relics, 582n245-6

664

lc

kl

endowment of Holy Sepulcher, 392. 581n242 Heraclius, emperor, 240 in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 239 Heraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem appointment of, 179, 469 in fall of Jerusalem, 473 seals of, 544n123 and True Cross relic, 472 Herklotz, I., 493n49 Herlihy, David, 510n59 Hermogenes (sorcerer), 434

Hernesius, archbishop of Caesarea, 33] Herod, sculpture of, plate 8B.1 Sf-g Hetherington, Paul, 582n248 Hierotheos, preceptor of Dionysius the Areopagite, 388 Hiestand, Rudolf, 498n65, 504n142

Hill, J. H., 499n69 Hoag, J., 548n193 Hoch, Martin, 518n22 Hodierna, wife of Raymond II of Tripoli, 121, 124, 288, 517n8 patronage of, 322 Hoffmann, P., 526n120

Honorius II, Pope, 97, 113 Horn, Elzear, 174, 598n237 on tomb of Baldwin V, 467, 598n234, 599n270, 600n271 Hugh de Payens, 78 Hughes, archbishop of Edessa, 172 Hugh Le Maisné, 23 Hugh of Caesarea, 334 Hugh of Jaffa, 122 Hugh of St. Victor, 173, 535n28 Hugh of Vermandois, 23, 28 in Crusade of 1101, 48 route to Holy Land, 24 Humphrey II of Toron, 412 Hunt, L.-A., 361, 364, 525n106

on ‘Athlit, 382 on Basilius, 354 on Church of the Nativity mosaics. 353, 362, 572n76, 572n81, 573283, 574n105 on Damascus Gate chapel, 379. 281, 564n117, 579n182 on icons, 408, 586n332 on Manuel Comnenus, 573n96 on San Danieli Bible, 465, 466 on Syrian artists, 585n303

Hyrtacus, King: in Church ofthe Annunciation sculpture, 434, plate 10.51 Ibn al-Athir, 460, 479 al-Idrisi, Muhammed, 214, 251, 548n186 on Jerusalem, 285, 286

on St. Mary, Mt. Sion, 282 Il-Ghazi, sultan of Aleppo, 77 defeat by Crusaders, 83 Imad ad-Din, 473, 479 Iphegenia in Church of the Annunciation sculp-

ture, 434, plate 10.5]

Isai

triarch)

‘ly Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 238 spitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 388 Princess, 599n267

5

f Gap, 23

John of Wiirzburg, 9, 226, 243, 522n71 account of Church of St. Mary (Sion),

469, 601n304 on Anastasis mosaic (Holy Sepulcher),

406, 408 on Cathedral of St. James, 247 on centrality of Jerusalem, 213, 214

itriarch), in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383 s Kokkinobaphos, 576n133, 601n286

)

yn on yn »n

yn

Zehava, 397, 482n9, 556n94, 593n140 Church of the Annunciation, 430, 590n73-75, 590n79, 591n85, 591n95 Church of the Nativity, 574n110 Mt. Tabor, 594n147 Nazareth capitals, 431, 594n164 Templar workshop, 442, 455, 595n172, 596n179, 597n202, 601n286 tomb of Baldwin V, 468, 599n270, 600n271, 600n285, 601n292

Jager, R., 574n110 James, bishop of Jerusalem, 388 James the Greater, St. in Church of the Annunciation sculpture, 434, 592n124, plate 10.5h-j column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 96, 456, plate 10.17b icons of, 461, plate 10.19

martyrdom of, 247 relics of, 247, 549n8 James the Less, St.: martyrdom of, 253 Jean, bishop of Acre, 511n65 ichim and Anna in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 358

depiction in Templum Domini, 552n34 house of, 135, 321, 322, 522n77 Johannes (mason), 417 hannes Phocas, 82, 226, 243 account of Church of St. Mary (Sion), 469, 470, 471

on Byzantine monasteries, 471. 602n316 on Church of the Annunciation, 433,

591n100, 594n166 on Church of the Nativity, 351, 371-72, 578n158 on Emmaus, 579n185 identity of, 471 on Jerusalem, 471 on Manuel Comnenus, 471, 573n90 on mosaics, 231, 545n137

John, bishop of Acre, 172 John I Comnenus, 76 John IT Comnenus death of, 126 and Fulk, 125 siege of Antioch, 124-25

Syrian campaign of, 125 treaty with Raymond, 124

chauvinism of, 405 on Dome of the Chain, 552n37 on Franks, 586n317 on Gethsemane, 380, 579n178 on Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 230, 231-32, 233, 235, 240, 539n73 on Hospital of St. John, 281, 556n96 on military orders, 393, 582n260 on multiculturalism, 405, 480 on Nazareth, 591n98 purpose of, 404-5 ye recording of inscriptions, 545n130, 545n137, 5 571n57, 578n155 on relics, 582n249, 582n255 route of, 405 on Syrians, 405 on Templars, 441 on Templum Domini, 251, 252-53, 405, 551n21, 552n29, 552n32, 552n34 on Tomb of Melisende, 328 on Tomb of the Virgin, 566n154 translations of, 585n307 on True Cross, 391 John the Baptist, St. churches dedicated to, 306, 562n93 in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 358 column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 317-18, 369, plate 8B.20 cult of, 309 decapitation of, 313 in Jerusalem missal, 104 as patron of Hospitalers, 306 relics of, 298, 299, 392 sculpture fragments of, plate 8A.12c tomb of, 64, 66, 113, 309, 563n104 John the Evangelist, St. column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 238, plate 9.28a Byzantine style of, 366 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.9r

in Vatican gospelbook, 346, plate 9.4f John Tzimisces, 105 Jordan, K., 582n245 Jordanus (architect), 245 Jordanus (goldsmith), 290 Joscelin of Courtenay. See Joscelin I of Edessa Joscelin I of Edessa campaign against Il-Ghazi, 78 captivity of (1104), 50 captivity of (1122), 83, 84

capture by Balak, 83

election as count of Edessa,

plate 9.29]

iconography of, 346 Joseph of Arimathea, in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 388

Josias (scribe), 434 Judas in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226 in PsalterofQueen Melisende, plate 6.8n

Julian the Apostate, 313 Justinian, portraits of, 572n75 Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, I., 576n133 Kedar, B. Z., 285, 535n28

540n8 1-84, 557n109, 563n104 on corbels, 319, 565n135 on Holy Sepulcher, 597n200 Kerbogha of Mosul, at Antioch, 27, 28 Kilij Arslan III, Seljuk Sultan, 413 King, E. J., 557n103 Kitbuqa (Moslem general), 532n3 Knute, St., 285 column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 8B.17a—b, 163, 564n118, 564n125, 577n145 K6tzsche, L., 294, 296, 297 Kubach, H. E., 535n30 Kiihnel, Bianca, 158, 266, 482n9, 527n124 on Church of the Ascension, 259-60, 979

on Holy Sepulcher, 455, 541n89-90 on workshop of Nazareth, 594n161 Kiihnel, Gustav, 482n9, 510n63, 511n72., 528n141, 546n158 on Abu Ghosh, 379, 383, 579n193, 580n207, 580n212 on Basilius, 354 on Byzantine monasteries, 577n148 on Church of the Nativity, 317, 352, 564n118, 564n123, 570n57, 572n76, 573n87, 576n130, 578n163 on Ephraim the mosaicist, 373n84 on fresco painting, 313

Lauffray, J., 12, 584n292 Lawrence, St.: icons of, 461, plate 10.19 Lawrence, T. E., 15, 484n46 on Crac des Chevaliers, 398 Lazarus in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226, 227 540n80

in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.31

death of, 119, 121

665

76

as guardian of Constance, 114 ransom of Baldwin II, 87 Joscelin II of Edessa, 119, 121 campaign against Zengi, 124 fealty to John II Comnenus, 125 opposition to Fulk, 121 Joscelin Ill of Edessa, 467, 469 Joseph, St. in Church of the Nativity mosaic, 371,

Lazarus (continued)

tomb, 65, 521n67-68 decoration of, 131, 521n69 Le Bruyn, C., 515n121 Leo, Prince, 121 Leo, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 96, 366, 369, 370, plate 9.27c Léon, Paul, 10, 11 Leonard, St. column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 462, plate 10.17e

icons of, 462, plate 10.19 Letard II, archbishop of Nazareth, 480 rebuilding of Church of the Annunciation, 414, 415, 440-41, 595n 166 seals of, 594n165 Lindner, M., 540n80, 540n85, 540n87 Litold (Litolfus) of Tournai, 32 Loerke, William, 408 Longinus (Roman soldier), 28, 295,

546n148, 560n45 Louis VII, king of France, 178, 186 Baldwin’s appeal to, 412 at Mt. Sion, 282 patronage of Sens, 313 Lucius, Pope, 510n59 Luke, St. in Paris gospelbook, plate 9.3c in Vatican gospelbook, 346, plate 9.4e Lux, Ute, 554n71 Lyman, T., 541n94, 543n108 Macarius, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 283, plate 8A.18 Macpherson, J. R., 187, 202, 533n15 Maguire, H., 371, 372, 578n158 Male, Emile, 574n111, 576n131, 580n206 Maleo, M. Morone de, 245 Malik as-Salih, 460 Manasses, constable, 288 Mango, Cyril, 575n123 Manuel I Comnenus, 82, 126, 288, 409 at Antioch, 301 death of, 413, 459 defeat by Seljuks, 412 gifts to Crusaders, 392, 562n77 and kings of Jerusalem, 301 marriage to Maria of Antioch, 301-2 palace of, 391, 581n232 patronage of artists, 390, 471, 564n117 patronage of Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, 563n104 portrait of, 351, 357-58, 573n90, 602n319 redecoration of Church of the Nativity, 315, 333, 347, 350, 353-54, 378, 471, 570n57, 571n64, 572n75 treaty with Amaury, 351, 391 treaty with Nureddin, 300, 301 Margaret, St. See Marina II, St. Maria, queen of Amaury, 333, 334, 347 Manuel Comnenus’s gifts to, 392 Maria of Antioch

marriage to Manuel I Comnenus, 301—2

regency of Constantinople, 413 Marina I, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 366, 369,

577n152, plate 9.27b Marina II, St: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 379, plate 9.28d Mark, St.

on reliquaries, 299

Anastasis miniature of, 230, 23]. 296, 543n112, 544n12} Anglo-Saxon ornament of, 525n106 artists of, 155-56, 158, 476 Byzantine elements of, 155-56. 157-58, 592n111 calendar, 137, 151, 154, 156, 158. 561n61, plate 6.9a—c

commissioning of, 154, 155 in Vatican gospelbook, 346, plate 9.4d contents of, 523n88 Martha, sister of Mary, 227, plate 7.9e date of, 154, 157, 231, 524n100 Martin of Tours, St. East-West intermingling in, 23]. 242 icons of, 462, 598n239, plate 10.19 gold decoration of, 156 in liturgical calendars, 151, 155, 524n93 iconographic sources of, 155 Mary Magdalene, 214 incipits of, 137, 156 in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 240 initials of, plate 6.9d—m in Holy Sepulcher sculpture, 226 Italo-Levantine influence on, 156 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate litany of, 151, 155, 158 6.9u mandorla in, 238 Mathilda, queen of England, 154 medallions of, 156 Matthew, St: in Vatican gospelbook, 346, New Testament miniatures of. 137, plate 9.4c 155, 232-33, plate 6.8a—x Maurice of Porto, 42 Ascension in, 238 death of, 56 panel headpieces of, 155, 164, plate Mawdud, lord of Mosul, 69 6.9n-v Mayer, Hans E., 1, 130, 487n23, 505n175, prayers in, 151, 155, 156, 158 509n32, 549n2 Psychomachia in, 435 on Amaury, 567n5, 567n10 Queen Morphia in, 151, 524n100 on Baldwin III, 287 role of King Fulk in, 154, 156 on coronation ceremonies, 517n2 Romanesque elements of, 156 on Fulk and Melisende, 518n12-13 scribe of, 155, 158 on Melisende’s patronage, 521n59 stars in, 465 on seals, 559n23 three Marys in, 295 on Templars, 581n224 treasure binding, 137-38, 154, Melchizedek, 580n207 523n88, 524n95, 567n10, Melisende, queen of Latin Jerusalem 592n126, plate 6.10a—c alienation from Fulk, 122 cross motifs on, 156-57. 158 coronation with Baldwin, 179 ivory carvings of, 157-58, 159, 333, coronation with Fulk, 113, 114, 119, 527n123-24, 529n160 165, 517n1 silk embroidery of, 156-57, 158, and death of Fulk, 174 159, 525n108, 526n115, 529n at dedication of Holy Sepulcher, 229 160 iconography of, 175, 532n3 reconciliation with Fulk, 122—23, 154, last years and death, 324 155, 174 patronage, 130-37, 151, 246, 328, and regency of Antioch, 124 318n16, 603n10 seals of, 172, 559n20 of Cathedral of St. James, 249 tomb, 133, 286, 32428, 566n150, of Cathedral of St. Mary Magdalene, 566n154, 566n156, plate 550n14 8B.26a—d of Church of St. Anne, 522n72 location of, 567n157 of Church of St. Samuel, 549n5 voussoirs of, 328 of Holy Sepulcher, 163, 202, 228. war with Baldwin, 287-88, 290 232-33, 245, 533n18, 542n98 William ofTyre’s account of, 130-31, in Jerusalem, 246-47, 283, 290 137, 175, 324, 521n59--62, of Orthodox Christians, 247, 286, 566n156 462, 549n7, 550n14 Memling, Hans, 281 of St. Lazarus, 131, 163, 169, 173, Metcalf, D. M., 52, 170, 171, 510n59 324, 521n57-62, 559n24 on Crusader coinage, 335, 337, of Templum Domini, 324, 550n19 530n170, 559n21 political influence of, 122, 175, 202, on mint of Acre, 289 286, 287, 518n13, 518n17 Meurer, Heribert, 99, 100, 169, 529n154, portraits of, 175 559n28 Psalter of, 13, 104, 137-58, 478, on cross reliquaries, 297 483n29 Micha

el, patriarch of Antioch, 408

666

Michael, St.. in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.90

Miles of Plancy, 410 275 Miller, T.

Pace, V.

on Nazareth capitals, 440 on San Danieli Bible, 466 on Templar workshop, 455

coronation of, 517n1 death of, 113, 324

Pantaleon, St.: frescoes of, 403, 584n293, plate 9.371 Paschal II, Pope, 504n152 acquisition of True Cross relic, 49, 497n23 chartering of Hospital of St. John, 67 and Daimbert, 56 death of, 76

in Psalter of Queen Melisende, 151,

Paul, St.: icons of, 461, 462, plate 10.19

Mohammed

ascent to heaven, 553n40 as idol, 44, 495n77 and Templum Domini, 552n34 Mohammed (Seljuk sultan), 69

Morphia, queen of Baldwin II, 79, 87

524n100 tomb of, 566n152 Miiller, H., 169

Mugaddasi, 542n96 al-Mustansir, Caliph: coinage of, 171, plate 5.12

Muthesius, Anna, 526n120

Napoleon, Near Eastern campaigns of, 5, 482n3 Nasir-I-Khusrau, 230, 539n72 Nelson, R., 586n332 Newnum, E. G., 534n22, 535n31 Nicetas, archbishop of Nicomedia, 575n124 Nicholas, St.: in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate 6.9t Nicholas of Verdun, 351, 572n68 Nicholson, R. L., 489n50, 497n41

Nikulas of Pvera, 173, 213, 317, 535n28 on centrality of Jerusalem, 213 on Holy Sepulcher, 285 route of, 286 on St. Mary, Mt. Sion, 282 Norman, J. S., 527n124 Nureddin aid to Fatimids, 390

campaign against Amaury, 333 campaign against Baldwin III, 290, 299-300 death of, 409 siege of Apamea, 543n107 treaty with Manuel I Comnenus, 300, 301 Nureddin, son of Saladin, 472 Odo of St. Amand, 393 Ogier (mason), 417

Olaf, St. column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 96, 163, 285, 317, 564n118, 564n125, 577n145, plate 8B.18a—c cult of, 68 Onuphrius, St.: column painting of, 283. plate 8A.19 Oswald, St., 561n61 on reliquaries, 299 Otto of Freising, 496n20 Ousterhout, R., 534n23, 53745, 548n

195

Pesant, R., 52, 558n19, 559n21 Peter, St.

Byzantine iconography of, 497n37 in Church of the Annunciation sculpture, 431-32, 434, plate 10.4h, plate 10.5e, plate 10.5g, plate 10.6d-e on coinage, 51, 53, 511n65 Deésis Chapel painting of, 165, plate 6.15f founding of churches, 432, 591n90 in Jerusalem missal, 104 on reliquaries, 299 on Sancta Sanctorum reliquary, 53 on seals, 172 standard of, 24, 486n10 Peter Bartholomew ordeal by fire, 29 visions of, 27-28, 487n25 Peter Desiderius, 30 Peter of Barcelona, 548n186 Peter of Narbonne, 29 Peter the Deacon, 535n28, 551n24 on centrality of Jerusalem, 213 Peter the Hermit, 23 Petrus Tudebodus, 44 Philetus (sorcerer), 434

Philip, Apostle, relics of, 392, 582n249 Philip of Flanders, count, 412 Philippe d’ Aubigny, tomb of, 492n36 Photius, 526n118 Piccirillo, M., 324 Pisellus (goldsmith), 99, 290, 559n26

identity of, 559n26 Plommer, Hugh, 470, 601n296, 602n305 Poggibonsi, Niccolo da, 233, 243 Pons of Tripoli, 87

at Apamea, 69 campaign against Il-Ghazi, 83

challenge to Fulk, 121 death of, 124 Porteous, J.. 41-42, 52, 170 on denier coinage, 172 on Fulk’s coinage, 530n169-70

on mints, 529n161

Porter, A. K.: on Nazareth capitals, 431, 593n143 Prawer, Joshua, 484n46, 517n2, 542n99, 543n108

Pringle, R. Denys, 111-12, 482n9, 484n46, 500n94, 515n113, 534n22

667

on abbey at Bethany, 521n63 on Crusader castles, 518n18 on Crusader churches, 517n3, 593n 140 excavation of Belmont, 393 on fortified towers, 520n53

on Holy Sepulcher, 570n56 on masons’ marks, 589n53

on Nazareth capitals, 592n129 on St. Mary Latin, 379 Prodromo, A., 328 Prudentius, 158 Prutz, H., 52

Quaresmius, F., 528n144 on Calvary Chapel, 528n151 on Church of the Annunciation, 589n58 on Church of the Nativity mosaics, 231, 233, 234, 236, 238, 357, 358, 544n126, 573n89, 574n109 recording of inscriptions, 229, 544n131 on tomb of Baldwin V, 467 on tomb of Melisende, 566n156 Quetard, P., 402 Ralph, bishop of Bethlehem, 315 death of, 409 patronage of, 561n60 redecoration of Church of the Nativity, 333, 347, 350, 571n64 Ralph, patriarch of Antioch, 124 deposition of, 125, 173 Ralph of Caen, on Tancred, 54 Rambald, count of Orange, 23 Raoul Glaber, 35 Raoul of Caen, 492n35 Rashid ed-Din Sinan, 393, 582n257 Raymond IV, count of Toulouse. See Raymond IV of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse Raymond of Aguilers, 23 on battle standards, 29 on coinage, 41, 42 on destruction of art, 29-30 as eyewitness, 486n8, 486n11 and Holy Lance, 28, 35 and siege of Jerusalem, 30, 32 on visions, 25, 489n35 Raymond I of Antioch, 121 campaign against Zengi, 124 coinage of, 171-72, 559n22, plate 6.23 death of (1149), 288, 543n107 fealty to John II Comnenus, 125 marriage to Constance, 124, 171, 531n183 and patriarch Ralph, 125 seals of, 172, 560n36, 560n38 treaty with John II Comnenus, 124 Raymond II of Antioch, coinage of, 559n22 Raymond of Le Forez, 23 Raymond of Le Puy, Grand Master of Hospitalers, 79 rule of, 275, 281 seals of, 294

Raymond of Poitiers. See Raymond I of Antioch Raymond IV of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse, 24 at Antioch, 26 at battle of Ascalon, 35 chalice of, 23 coinage of, 89 in Crusade of 1101, 49 death of, 499n71 departure from Jerusalem, 34 and Emperor Alexius, 487n25 and formation of Crusader States, 55

gifts to church, 54, 498n63

and Holy Lance, 28, 487n28 and Holy Sepulcher, 541n94 route to Holy Land, 24, 29 at siege of Jerusalem, 30, 32 siege of Tripoli, 54, 541n94 tomb of, 54-55, 499n71 Raymond I of Tripoli. See Raymond IV of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse Raymond II of Tripoli, 124 coinage of, 171

death of, 288, 393, 558n11 gifts to Hospitalers, 555n72 seals of, 172 Raymond III of Tripoli, 601n293 campaign against Saladin, 460, 472

capture by Nureddin, 333 coinage of, 558n20 patronage of Belmont, 322 as regent of Latin Kingdom, 410, 466, 599n267 truce with Saladin, 466 visit to Jerusalem, 412 and William of Tyre, 587n3 Renaud de Chatillon, 300, 301, 561n70 attack on Moslems, 436, 460 as commander of Franks, 412 invasion of Cyprus, 300, 561n70 and Saladin, 460, 472 Rengherio (goldsmith), 63, 502n107 Renghieri, Renghiera, 79, 82, 476, 508n19 Reuwich, Erhard, 243 Rey, Guillaume, 8-9, 12, 525n108 on coinage, 52 study of castles, 482n10 Richard of Salerno. See Richard of the Principate. Richard of the Principate, 50 Ridwan, ruler of Aleppo, 49 Riley-Smith, Jonathan, 481n6, 487n25, 488n35, 489n54, 507n10 on Crusading expeditions, 496n18 on Muristan, 556n95 Prosopographical studies by, 513n92 on Tortosa, 302 Robert II, count of Flanders, 23 return to Europe, 490n12 route to Holy Land, 24, 29 at siege of Jerusalem, 32 Robert Curthose, 23 Robert of Auvergne, 281, 556n95, 556n99

Robert of Normandy, 23 in battle of Ascalon, 35 departure from Antioch, 28 return to Europe, 490n12 at siege of Jerusalem, 32 Robert of Paris, 56 Robert of Rouen, 30, 57 Robert of Saint-Gilles, 382 Robert of Saone, 514n109 Roberts, David, 482n18 Roger, E., 589n58 Roger, bishop of Ramla-Lydda, 57 Roger of Apulia, Duke, 67 Roger of Salerno, coinage of, plate 5.8

Roger I of Sicily, count: coinage of, 50, 497n28 Roger II of Sicily, count: coinage of,

530n167 Roger of the Principate, 69 coinage of, 88 death of, 78 Rognwaldr III of Norway, 317

Rohricht, R., 549n1 Romain du Puy, 122 Rorgo Fretellus, 187, 251, 531n194 date of text, 202

identity of, 533n12-13, 533n15 See also Eugesippus. Rosen-Ayalon, M., 241, 242, 538n63,

547n178-80 Rowe, J. G., 46 Runciman, Sir Stephen, 472, 549n7 Ryan, Will, 501n101

Sabas, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 366, 462, 577n147, plate 9.26b Sabine, C. J., 531n182, 559n22 Saewulf (pilgrim), 40, 491n13 account of Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 60, 62, 496n12 on centrality of Jerusalem, 213, 214 on Church of St. Anne, 64, 522n71 on destruction of holy sites, 65 on Hospital of St. John, 67

Saladin after death of Nureddin, 409 in Amaury’s Egyptian campaign, 390 attack on Daron, 391 attack on Montréal, 393 in Battle of Hattin, 472 capture of Jerusalem, 135, 472-73 and Church of St. Anne, 135 consolidation of power, 410, 414 defeat at Mont Gisard, 412 destruction of Bethany, 131 destruction of holy sites, 473 at Gibelet, 54 and Holy Sepulcher, 541n92 illness of, 466 invasion of Latin Kingdom, 436, 441.

460 raids on Tripoli, 413 tazing of Christian buildings, 16

668

and Renaud de Chatillon, 460, 472 siege of Ascalon, 412 and Templars, 472 and Templum Domini, 551n24 Salamé-Sarkis, H., 499n71 Saller, S., 131, 504n149 Salome, sculpture of, plate 8B. 1 Sh-j Salzmann, Auguste, 7, 547n177 Sandler, Salina, 527n124 Sawar of Aleppo, 121 Schick, Conrad, 67, 253, 278, 503n128. 505n168 on Hospital of St. John, 274~75. 554n71 Schlumberger, G., 52, 497n39 on coinage, 90, 530n170 on seals, 559n23 Schmaltz, K., 543n108, 546n153 Scorel, Jan van, 79, 507n17 Setton, Kenneth, 13 Shams-al-Muluk Isma’il of Damascus. 121 Shawar, Sultan, 333 Shirkuh, Sultan, 333, 390 Sibylla, Princess, 331, 599n267 coronation of, 469, 471 marriage to Guy de Lusignan, 412 marriage to William Longsword, 410 Sibylle of Flanders, 324 Sigurd “Jorsalfar,” king of Norway, 68 Sint Jans, Geertgen tot, 281 Sluter, Claus, 546n153 Solomon, King in Holy Sepulcher mosaics, 234, 235 in Vienne sculpture, 439 Spaer, A., 530n170 Stager, L., 561n67 Steele, R., 524n92 Stephaton, 295-96, 546n148, 560n45 Stephen, count of Burgundy and Macon, 48 Stephen, patriarch of Jerusalem, 103, 113. 162 Stephen (priest), 27 Stephen, St. column painting of, 283, plate $A.17 Deésis Chapel painting of, 165, plate 5.15e icons of, 461, plate 10.19 in Psalter of Queen Melisende 525n105, plate 6.9s Stephen, St. (bishop): column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 452

Stephen of Blois, 27, 487n23 in Crusade of 1101, 48 and True Cross relic, 49 Stern, Henri, 361, 574n114, 575n120 Stones, A., 502n113, 541n94

Stratford, Neil, 595n167 Suger, Abbot, 39, 203, 228 and Tree of Jesse, 576n130

Svein (pilgrim), 317, 564n121 Symeon, Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem, 26

death of, 34 Tabitha, 435

in Church 0 ture.

\nnunciation sculp. plate 10.5e

26 Tancred, 24,

n, 35 at battle of Ascaio 30 he at Bethle Galzice, 48 capture of areth, 414 Naz capture of Baldwin, 51 wii war l civi

36, 491nl6 decoration of churches, statuary, 44 destruction 01 f pagan 55 , 54 36, of, fiefdoms 51-52, 497n41,

image on coinage, 497n45

mplum Domini, 35, plunder48of9nTe 50 regency of Antioch, 50, 51, 53, 54

route to Holy Land, 25, 29 in siege of Haifa, 42 at siege of Jerusalem, 32 Taticius (envoy), 26 Taylor, M., 576n130

Theodora, Princess, 296, 301, 333 influence on Crusader art, 324, 328 Theodore, St., 389

in Byzantine art, 52, 497n45 Theodore Apsuedes, 389 Theodorich (pilgrim), 39, 62, 226, 243 on Anastasis mosaic, 406, 408, 544n121

on Baldwin II’s tomb, 516n143 on Belvoir, 393

on Bethany, 456 on building materials, 203, 534n25 on Calvary Chapel, 545n148 on Church of the Annunciation, 433

on Church of the Nativity Grotto, 372, 578n161 on Dikka, 450

on Dome of the Chain, 552n37 on Gethsemane, 380

on Holy Sepulcher, 82, 225, 406, 508n25, 581n239

campanile, 214, 538n57 mosaics, 230, 231, 234, 240,

539n68, 539n73, 543n113, 544n135, 581n244 on Hospitalers, 582n260 on Hospital of St. John, 281, 556n96 identity of, 585n310

agna Mahumeria, 111

on Monastery of St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, 131 on multiculturalism, 405 on northern Crusader States, 582n263

on pilgrims, 585n308 purpose of, 405

recording of inscriptions, 228, 232-33, 252-53, 545n137, 551n21, 578n155

on relics, 582n249, 582n255 route of, 405

on Templars, 393, 441, 582n260 on Templum Domini, 251, 252-53, $52n32, 552n34 on Templum Salomonis, 468. 596n177

on Tomb of Melisende, 328 on Tomb of the Virgin, 566n154

translations of, 585n307 Theodosius, St.: column painting of (Church of the Nativity), 366,

577n147, plate 9.26a Theophilus, De Diversis Artibus, 498n62,

513n93 Theophilus, Emperor: Byzantine coins of,

512n85 Thiemo, Archbishop of Salzburg, 49, 496n20 Thierry of Flanders, 300 Thomas, Doubting in Church of the Annunciation sculp-

ture, 434, plate 10.5b-c mosaics of, 238, 358, 363, 364, 576n131, 580n219, plate 9.12a—c in Psalter of Queen Melisende, plate

6.8t Timotheos, bishop of Ephesus, 388 Timurtash, 87

Tughtigin of Damascus, 76, 78 defeat (1121), 83 in siege of Tyre, 85 truce with Baldwin II, 87 Tzaferis, V., 572n65, 573n87, 574n115

Uldretus (goldsmith), 99, 290 Umbertus (goldsmith), 99, 513n88 Unur (Turk), 519n40

treaty with Fulk, 126 Urban II, Pope, 24, 542n104 call for First Crusade, 21 and French crusaders, 23 legates of, 34, 36

birthplace of, 135, 321, 383, 565n138 in Church of the Nativity Grotto

mosaic, 371, plate 9.29i-j on coins, 88 in Crucifixion frescoes, 239 cult at Nazareth, 441 holy sites of, 478 iconography of, 62, 94, 502n113, 510n52 Byzantine, 388 in Jerusalem missal, 104, plate 6.12) Koimesis, 162, 357 Byzantine iconography of, 570n49 in Church of the Nativity mosaics, 357 in Hospitaler Church of Abu Ghosh, 383, 388, 580n219, plate 9.34e, plate 9.351 in Nazareth capitals, 435, plate 10.6a as protectress of city gates, 382 in Psalter of Queen Melisende, 165,

plate 6.8w relics of, 582n249, 582n255 Tomb of, 113, 491n20, 516n135, 566n153-54, plate 8B.27a-d baldacchinos of, 434 on Cambrai map, 566n150 Daniel’s account of, 65, 566n150 John of Wiirzburg’s account of, 566n154 Templar sculpture in, 452 Theodorich’s account of, 566n154 in Twelve Feasts icon, 408 See also Virgin and Child (in General Index).

Usamah ibn-Munquidh, 126, 519n40

Walid I, Caliph, 228 Walter of Mesnil, 393

Van Berchem, Marguerite: on Templum Domini, 551n24, 575n117 Van Berchem, Max, 12, 483n18 on Qubbat al-Mi'raj, 253. 553n41 Van der Weyden, Rogier, 281 Viaud, P., 418, 430, 435, 589n47, 589n61 Victor IV, Pope, 414 Vincent, Hughes, 10, 492n36 on Church of St. Anne, 133, 135, 579n191 on Church of St. James, 550n11 on Church of St. Mary (Sion), 471 on Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 57-58, 501n97, 535n31. 543n108, 548n186 on Church of the Nativity, 572n77, 573n79 on Hospital of St. John, 554n71 on icons of Virgin, 502n113 on medieval renovation, 500n89 on Oratory of St. Stephen, 381 on Qubba Nahwiyya. 554n58 on Tomb of the Virgin, 113 of, 283, plate Vincent, St.: column painting 8A.15 Virgin Mary

Walter sans Avoir, 23 Walter the Chancellor, 78

669

Warmundus. See Gormond, patriarch of Jerusalem Weitzmann, Kurt, 1, 163, 406, 484n41, 532n3, 576n139 on Coenaculum, 601n301 on holy sites, 299 on icons, 462, 586n332 Westergard-Nielsen, C., 285. 535n28 Weyl Carr, Annemarie, 347, 353, 463, 580n222 on Abu Ghosh, 388, 389, 390 on Holy Sepulcher gospelbooks, 570n55 Wharton, Annabel, 538n57 Wicher (soldier), 586n317

Wigley, J., 5 Wiligelmo (artist), 351 Wilkinson. John, 173, 202, 406, 492n36. 531n194 on Church of the Agony, 380 on Dome of the Chain, 553n38 on Fretellus, 533n13 on Holy Sepulcher, 568n26 on Holy Week, 557n116

Wilkinson, John (continued) on Hospital of St. John, 554n71 on inscriptions, 544n130 on maps, 556n100 on Peter the Deacon, 551n24

on spolia, 536n39 translations by, 585n307 William II, count of Nevers, 48 William de Bures, 84 William Embriachi, 30

William Jordan, count of Cerdagne coinage of, 89 fiefdoms of, 55 William Longsword, 410

William IX of Aquitaine, 48 William III of Montferrat, 601n295 William of Montpellier, 23 William of Oldenbrand, 15 William of Saone, 515n109 William of Sens, 313 William of Tyre, 4, 480 on Amaury, 331, 333, 390, 586n345

ambitions to patriarchy, 179

on Antioch, 26, 486n20

as archdeacon of Tyre, 333 on armor, 489n54

on Arnulf of Chocques, 57, 500n85

on Baldwin I’s coronation, 46 on Baldwin II, 115

on Baldwin III, 175, 561n70 on Banyas, 108 on Beirut, 505n173 on Belvoir, 393, 583n266 on Bethany, 131 on Beth Gibelin, 123 Boase’s use of, 15 on Caesarea, 48 on Castle Arnold, 122-23 on Castle of Montreal, 70 as chancellor of Jerusalem, 561n60,

587n3 chronology of, 517n6 on Church of St. Anne, 522n71 on Church of St. George, 488n39 on civil war, 558n9

on coinage, 90, 598n226

on Council of Nablus, 82 as court historian, 518n12, 558n1 on Crusader costume, 21, 485n2 on Daimbert, 491n28 death of, 598n232 on decoration of churches, 36 on defacing of art, 488n37 description of Cairo palace, 334 education of, 179, 532n7, 558n1 on Egyptian campaigns, 333 on enclosure of holy sites, 203-4, 535n99 as eyewitness, 179 on fortification of Jerusalem, 412, 587n14 on Fulk, 121, 172, 174 on Fulk’s fortifications, 128, 130 on Fulk’s vassals, 121-22 Gesta Orientalium Principum, 334 on gifts to Crusaders, 489n36, 491n16 on Godefroy de Bouillon, 36, 40, 43 on Hospitalers, 274, 281 on Hospital of St. John, 278 on Ibelin, 520n50 on Jaffa, 37 on John II’s Syrian campaign, 125 on Kerak, 128, 520n44 on Manuel I Comnenus, 301, 391, 412, 581n232 manuscripts of, 174, 175 on Melisende, 175, 324 on Melisende’s patronage, 130-31, 137, 521n59-62 on Melisende’s tomb, 566n156 on military orders, 413 negotiations with Manuel I Comnenus, 351 on Nureddin, 409, 561n68 on population of Jerusalem, 73 as prior of Holy Sepulcher, 151, 155 on rebuilding of Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 63, 178-79, 203, 229. 503n121 on Renaud of Chatillon, 301 return to Holy Land, 333-34

670

on royal tombs, 186, 533n11

and scriptorium of Church of the Holy

Sepulcher, 101

on siege of Ascalon, 288 on siege of Jerusalem, 32 on Templum Domini, 136, 249-50, 550n16

:

translations of, 485n2, 568n15 on True Cross, 78, 285, 39]

on Tyre, 85

on William of Flanders, 113

William I, patriarch of Jerusalem coronation of Baldwin III, 175 death of, 103, 179 elevation of, 113 and Fulk’s vassals, 122

and rebuilding of Holy Sepulcher, 179, 202-3, 228, 517n4, 532n8-9. 533n18, 533n20 seals of, 90, 172, 295, 510n63. 51 1n72,

plate 5.2 and True Cross, 124, 166 Williamson, P., 595n167 Willis, Robert, 482n12, 501n103 Wormald, F., 162, 524n90, 524n92. 528n131 Yawn-Bonghi, Lila, 557n109 Yvetta, daughter of Baldwin II, 151

birth of, 517n1

as hostage, 131, 520n57 in Monastery of St. Anne, 131, 133.

521n57, 522n72 as mother superior of Convent of St. Lazarus, 133, 137 Yvon, J., 558n19

370, 378, 573n81 Zarnecki, G., 590n66 Zengi of Aleppo, 87, 114 campaign against Fulk, 123, 124

125-26 and John II Comnenus, 124 Zuallardo, G., 493n38—40

Index of Manuscript Repositories

Athens. National Library

Montpellier. Ecole de Médecine Ms. H 142, 488n41

Ms. 163, 570n48

Mount Athos Kutlumusi Ms. 61, 570n48 Lavra Ms. A 66, 570n51

Berlin. Universitatssamlung

Cod. 3807, 512n85

Lavra Ms. B 26, 570n51 Stauronikita 43, 569n41 Munich. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek CLM. 835, 527n124

Cambrai. Bibliothéque municipale Ms. 437, 281, 294, 336, 543n106, 548n187, 552n35,

556n100, 560n41, 566n150, 568n23 Cambridge. Fitzwilliam Museum McLean Ms. 49, 100, 102, 159, 513n97, plate 5.19a-f

New York. Morgan Library

Ms. 721, 524n97 Ms. 724, 524n97

Florence. Biblioteca Laurenziana

Ms. Plut. LXI.10, 508n24

Oxford. Christ Church Wake Ms. 31, 570n51

Grottaferrata, Abbey of

Palermo. Biblioteca Communale Ms. Qq. H11, 90 Paris. Bibliothéque nationale Ms. yn Coislin 195, 569n41 Ms. fr. 9084, 508n24 Ms. gr. 61, 570n51 Ms. gr. 1208, 576n133 Ms. lat. 276, 337-47, 569n31, 569n35, 570n55, 576n133, plate 9.3a-f Ms. lat. 5129, 533n13 Ms. lat. 9396, 282-83, 529n147, 557n105-6, plate 8A.13a—b Ms. lat. 12056, 104, 159-62, 527n127, plate 6.12a—k Ms. lat. 17296, 514n107 Ms. St. Victor 574, 533n13

Ms. gr. 161, 155, 526n118 Jerusalem. Greek Patriarchate

Taphou Ms. cod. 57, 572n66 1

ondon. British Library

Add. Ms. 37472, 524n97 Egerton Ms. 1070, 548n188 Egerton Ms. 1139, 13, 104, 137-58, 483n29, 523n88 Egerton Ms. 2902, 543n105 London. Victoria and Albert Museum Ms. 661, 524n97 Lyon. Bibliothéque municipale Ms. 410, 95, 511n70

671

Rome. Biblioteca Angelica

Ms. D.7.3, 100-101, 159, 513n97, 524n92, 543n105, plate 5.18b-d San Danieli del Friuli. Biblioteca Guarneriana Ms. III, 463-66, 598n255, plate 10.20a—g

St. Petersburg. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library Ms. gr. 801, 157 Vatican. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

Barberini Gr. Ms. 449, 570n51 Barberini Ms. 659, 528n128

Ms. Gr. 756, 346, 569n40 Ms. Urb. lat. 1362, 294 Ms. Vat. lat. 5974, 337-47, 366, 569n31, 569n37, 569n40, 570n55, plate 9.4a-f Ms. Vat. lat. 9233, plate 3.1a, plate 4.19, plate 10.21 Vienna. Nationalbibliothek Ms. 609, 533n13

Washington, D.C. Dumbarton Oaks

Cod. 2 (1084), 512n85